Butterflies and Moths of the World Generic Names and their Type-species

Genus details

Search again

Antirrhea Hübner, 1822 . Samml. exot. Schmett. 2 : pl.[81].    [BHLBHL]

Available Name

Homonyms: 1

Higher classification:

Antirrhea archaea Hübner, 1822. Samml. exot. Schmett. 2: pl.[81].    [BHLBHL]

Type-species designation:
by monotypy .

Type specimens:
See BHL scanned Type-species page: .

Cowan (1970: 25-26) stated:-

"ANTIRRHAEA Auctorum, (1851-1870)"

Hemming, 1967 : 48 gave three entries for this name, which was a popular and almost universal misspelling of the neglected but valid Antirrhea Hübner, [1822], as correctly listed by Doubleday, 1844 (List Specimens Lep. Ins. Coll. B.M. (1) : 121). Even now it still recurs.

As explained below in discussing Emendations, there are no grounds for considering "Antirrhaea Hübner" Westwood, [1851] : 363-366 as anything other than a simple Incorrect Subsequent Spelling.

Under the heading Haetera Fabricius, Westwood marshalled fourteen species which he split into three subgenera in two divisions. Division A, Section 1 was "Haetera proper, Fabricius" (i.e. Haetera Fabricius sens. strict.), having three species including Papilio piera L. Section 2 was "Pierella Westwood, Pieris Hübner, Antirrhaea Boisduval ms.", and in this subgenus were six species headed by Papilio nereis Drury. Division B comprised "Antirrhaea proper, Hübner" (i e. Antirrh(a)ea Hübner sens. strict., nec. sens. Boisduval ms.), with the remaining five species among which were both A. archaea Hübner and Papilio philoctetes L.

Thus Westwood quite clearly upheld Haetera Fabricius and Antirrhea Hübner (which he misspelt), and introduced the new name Pierella for species to some of which Pieris Hübner (which he rightly regarded as invalid) and "Antirrhaea Boisduval ms." (also regarded as invalid) had been applied.

Westwood's three subgenera were quickly promoted and universally accepted, "Antirrhaea Westwood" being widely used in place of Antirrhea Hübner because the latter author gave no diagnosis. Thus Butler, twice in 1868 (Feb., Entomologists mon. Mag. 4 : 195 and [Jul.] ,Cat. Sat. in the B.M. : 102-107) designated type-species for Haetera Fabricius (P. piera L.) for Pierella Westwood (P. nereis Drury), and, mentioning the lack of a diagnosis by Hübner, for "Antirrhaea Westwood" (P. philoctetes L.). The Felders, circa 1862-1867, had been using the names, including "Antirrhaea", freely. And Kirby, 1871, 1877 (Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. (1) : 37, 38 and Suppl. : 698), tabled the same genera.

The correct name Antirrhea Hübner was finally restored by Scudder, 1875 (Hist. Sketch : 114), when he rightly pointed out that A. archaea Hübner was type-species by monotypy.

All this time the misapplied "Antirrhaea Boisduval ms." remained sunk in the synonymy of Pierella (where it still is). Hemming did examine it in 1941 (J. Soc. Biblphy nat. Hist. 1 (11) : 415), but only to allot it the same type-species as Pierella, and re-sink it as invalid.

Meanwhile Boisduval, 1870 (Consid. Lep. Guatemala : 61) had at last published "Antirrhaea Boisd." Two misconceptions have arisen here. Boisduval did not "introduce this as a new name", nor was the genus here monotypic. He showed this in his very brief treatment of it; - "Antirrhaea Boisd. I know only two species of this genus, philoctetes from Guyana and the following; Antirrhaea philopoemen Felder, Reise Novara". His reference would mean Plate 66, figs. 3, 4 where the Felders illustrated the earlier described Antirrhaea philopoemen C. & R. Felder, 1862 (Wien. ent. Monats. 6 : 425). Boisduval here gave no diagnosis or other indication that he considered this a new name; he clearly showed that he regarded it as well established. He apparently believed, as he did of several other names in the same paper, that he had introduced it himself long before (he now being 71 years old). Moreover, he used the name in the Hübnerian sense as opposed to the "Westwood Boisd. ms." sense, for he cited philoctetes.

It seems perfectly legitimate, as well as the most sensible course, to treat "Antirrhaea" Boisduval, 1870 as a repetition of the universal misspelling.

To summarise on the name in this spelling (leaving the entry for Antirrhea Hübner as perfectly correct);

"ANTIRRHAEA Hübner" Westwood, [1851] : 363-366. An Incorrect Subsequent Spelling of Antirrhea Hübner, [1822].

ANTIRRHAEA (Boisduval ms.)" Westwood. [1851] : 363, 365. A name, which he regarded as misapplied, cited by Westwood in the synonymies of Haetera Fabricius. [1807] and of Pierella Westwood, [1851], a subgenus thereof. Never since raised out of synonymy. Not available.

"ANTIRRHAEA Boisduval, 1870" Hemming, 1967 : 48. A myth. This was not an introduction of a new name by Boisduval, but the citation of the widely used misspelling of Antirrhea Hübner, coupled in error with his own name."

Antirrhea Hübner, [1822] was designated as the type-genus for the new tribe Antirrhini, Satyridae [now placed in the Nymphalidae, Satyrinae] by Miller, 1968, Mem. Am. ent. Soc. No. 24 : 29.

ANTIRRHEA was included within the subfamily NYMPHALIDAE: MORPHINAE by Ackery et al., in Kristensen (1999).

The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).

Learn more about Nymphalidae in Wikipedia

Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to ANTIRRHEA and included species.

Junior name(s):
Anchiphlebia Butler, 1868: 106.
Anchyphlebia Butler, 1868: 195.

Submit correction/addition