Adelphe flavipes ( Ducke, 1903 )
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5642.6.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3B7CA64C-AD05-47CB-B698-D89357A5ECD5 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15818275 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AE2DA93D-B53C-FFE9-39C4-97261B5711DF |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Adelphe flavipes ( Ducke, 1903 ) |
status |
|
Adelphe flavipes ( Ducke, 1903) View in CoL
Pseudepyris flavipes Ducke, 1903 a: 132 . Holotype ♂; Brazil: Pará [not Belém], 28.v.1902, A. Ducke (MNHN, examined). Adelphe flavipes View in CoL : Ducke (1911); Ducke (1913); Krombein (1957); Kimsey (1986a, 2008); Lucena & Almeida (2022); Lucena et al. (2024: 7).
Adelphe flavipes View in CoL was described based primarily on a male specimen collected in “ Pará ” on May 28, 1902, subsequently deposited at MNHN; a second, possibly aberrant, specimen, collected at “Itaituba” on the Tapajós (Pará), on August 19, 1902, subsequently deposited at MPEG, was noted as differing from the first in a single character, but was not explicitly excluded from conspecificity. Ducke (1903) referred to the first specimen as “ dem typischen Stücke ” (= the typical specimen) when comparing the two, referring to their apparently differing numbers of visible abdominal segments [“… und dies scheint bei dem typischen Stücke der Fall zu sein ” = … and this seems to be the case with the typical specimen]. Therefore, the first specimen, collected in Pará has to be interpreted as the holotype according to Code Art. 73.1.1, which states: “If an author when establishing a new nominal species-group taxon states in the original publication that one specimen, and only one, is the holotype, or “the type”, or uses some equivalent expression, that specimen is the holotype fixed by original designation”. Kimsey & Bohart (1991: 85) correctly reported the “ Pará ” specimen as the holotype .
In contrast, Lucena et al. (2024: 7) considered Adelphe flavipes View in CoL as having been described from two syntypes and applied Code Art. 74.6, treating the specimen collected in Pará as the lectotype by inference of “ holotype ” by Kimsey & Bohart. However, Code Art. 74.6 states: “When it has been accepted that a nominal species-group taxon was based on a single specimen and the original description neither implies nor requires that there were syntypes, and if it is considered subsequently that the original description was based on more than one specimen, the first author to have published before 2000 the assumption that the species-group taxon was based upon a single type specimen is deemed to have designated that specimen as the lectotype ”. So, Code Art. 74.6 cannot be applied because the number of specimens, two, studied by the author is known, while the article refers to taxa for which it is unclear from the original description whether they were described based on a series of syntypes or not .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Adelphe flavipes ( Ducke, 1903 )
Rosa, Paolo & Brothers, Denis J. 2025 |
Pseudepyris flavipes
Ducke 1903: 132 |