To which species should the name heynei Rühl, [1893] (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) be referred?

Historical records of Melitaea cinxia (Linnaeus, 1758) and M. arduinna (Esper, [1783]) from the mountains of Central Asia, including named subspecies and forms, are reviewed with particular reference to the name heynei Rühl, [1893], which has been associated with both of the aforementioned species....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inZootaxa Vol. 4531; no. 1; p. 81
Main Authors Russell, Peter J C, Lukhtanov, Vladimir A
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New Zealand 11.12.2018
Subjects
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Historical records of Melitaea cinxia (Linnaeus, 1758) and M. arduinna (Esper, [1783]) from the mountains of Central Asia, including named subspecies and forms, are reviewed with particular reference to the name heynei Rühl, [1893], which has been associated with both of the aforementioned species. It is concluded that the name heynei should be associated with M. arduinna and not M. cinxia. For the sake of nomenclatural stability, a specimen of M. arduinna from the southern slope of Alai Mountains (Kyrgyzstan, Daroot-Korgon) is designated as the neotype of Melitaea cinxia var. heynei Rühl, [1893]. The morphological features of M. cinxia and M. arduinna, including the subspecies of the latter, are compared and figured. The historic and recent misidentifications of M. cinxia as M. arduinna and vice versa are exemplified.
ISSN:1175-5334
DOI:10.11646/zootaxa.4531.1.3