|
Jérôme Sudre
Member Rosenbergia
France
1773 Posts |
 Posted - 19/02/2017 : 17:59:48
|
Normally yes, but the genus Pachystola was originally attributed to Lamia textor Linnaeus later changed into Lamia Fabricius.
The name Pachystola has been, if my memories are good (?), established for mamillata and other species, which originally was described as Lamia mamillata Dalman 1817.
Later, 1858, Chevrolat transferred it to the genus Pachystola the latter proposed by Reiche in 1850 of memory. Subsequently Marinoni 1977 decided to transfer the species belonging to the genus Pachystola (mamillata etc ...) and transferred them to the genus Neopachystola that he proposed simultaneously (but there is no description!
Would have had to make one because there were 2 or even other tribes of Laminae which possessed as genus name: Pachystola for example 1 Tragocephala I believe, Tragon, Homelix, Cyclotaenia and others ...
In place of his namesake, Pachystola, for the Lamia textor.
Although the idea of Marinoni is praiseworthy, I personally do not see the utility of validating Neopachystola for Pachystola, which is now widely used, as for the name Lamia textor widely used also since now at least 150 or 170 years ago. There is not too much risk of reappearing Pachystola instead of Lamia although Dejean used it first for the L textor .... (Pachystola textor 1835 in his catalogue).
I hope to have been relatively clear however it would be necessary to look back on the name of this genus which is not valid in the eyes of the rules of the CINZ |
Edited by - Jérôme Sudre on 05/04/2017 09:33:52 |
 |
|
D. R. Congo: Pachystola mamillata
