J. ent. Soc. Ont. Volume 144, 2013
|
SEARCH
for Articles published in JESO! Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario
Volume 144, 2013 I. FROM THE EDITOR [PDF] III. NOTES J.T. HUBER -- Idiotypa clavata (Provancher, 1888) (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae), new generic placement for a misclassified species ... 115-117 [PDF] IDIOTYPA CLAVATA (PROVANCHER, 1888) (HYMENOPTERA: DIAPRIIDAE), NEW GENERIC PLACEMENT FOR A MISCLASSIFIED SPECIES J. T. HUBER Natural Resources Canada, c/o Canadian National Collection of Insects, AAFC, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1A 0C6 email: john.huber@agr.gc.ca J. ent. Soc. Ont. Volume 144, 2013 Abstract (Note) In 1888, Provancher (1889) described Camptoptera (as “Camptotera”) clavata from a male and a female collected at Ste. Gertrude, Quebec, though he did not note the actual number of specimens examined. Presumably it was only two. He also did not designate a primary type. Girault (1911) borrowed what was thought to be the unique specimen of C. clavata, labelled “Camptotera clavata Prov. 1598”, but it arrived badly damaged so he could only state that it definitely did not belong to Mymaridae. Girault remounted the fragments remaining—initially stated to be “a single fore wing and several tarsi”; later in the same description corrected to “these notes are based on a fore wing and tibiae and tarsi of two legs”—in Canada balsam on a slide and described the fore wing venation and leg remnants before returning the specimen to the sender, Abbé V.A. Huard, Musée de l’Instruction Publique, Quebec [City]. Girault’s designation must be construed as a lectotype designation according to ICZN Article 73.1.3 and Recommendation 73F: “Where no holotype or syntype was fixed for a nominal species-group taxon established before 2000, and when it is possible that the nominal species-group taxon was based on more than one specimen, an author should proceed as though syntypes may exist and, where appropriate, should designate a lectotype rather than assume a holotype.” Gahan and Rohwer (1917) correctly treated Girault’s “type” as a lectotype. |
|
|
|
