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

Genus details

Search again

Chlorippe Doubleday, 1845 . List Spec. lepid. Insects Colln Br. Mus. (1) : 108.    [BHLBHL]

Junior Objective Synonym

Homonyms: 2

Higher classification:

Papilio agathina Cramer, 1777. Uitl. Kapellen 2: 109, pl.167, figs E-F.    [BHLBHL]

Type-species designation:
by subsequent designation by Scudder , 1875. Proc. amer. acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10(2): 140.    [BHLBHL]

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

Hemming (1967) stated:-

Doubleday, when publishing this name, stated that it was a manuscript name of Boisduval's. As will be seen from the entry given immediately below, it was actually published by that author as a new name of his own many years later.

On some date in 1875, at present unknown but certainly after February, Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 140) selected Papilio agathina Cramer, [1777] (Uitl. Kapellen 2 (14) : 109, pl. 167, figs E, F) as type-species, without making any reference to his earlier and perfectly valid selection of Papilio laurentia Godart.

The two nominal species discussed above are currently considered subjectively on taxonomic grounds to represent taxa which are congeneric with one another. Accordingly, even if any author had been misled into adopting the later of the two type-selections made by Scudder, no harm would have ensued from the taxonomic point of view.

Cowan (1970: 44) stated:-

"(1) : 376 to read (2) : 376", [type-species part changed].

Cowan (1970: 21) stated:-

"SCUDDER, 1875
(a) "Historical Sketch", Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 10 : 91-293.
(b) Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sci. 2 (4) : 233-269.
(c) Mem. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 1.

Although no far-reaching decisions are involved, it would be useful if the relative priorities of these [four]? publications could be established. Hemming, 1967 : 254, under Lethites, places the Memoirs last. This is undoubtedly correct; they appeared after June 1875, and they have been included only because the year was the same. Then, under Chlorippe (: 112) and Dynothea (: 153), Hemming places the Bulletin first, in February, and the Proceedings "after February". This is not the whole story; neither appeared before late April as such.

Evidence collected to date suggests the following sequence of events;

11 Nov. 1874, Historical Sketch presented and read at the Meeting; see the subtitle (: 91), and the report (Proc. : 468). It is also recorded (Proc. : 465) that as from June 1874 authors were allowed 100 free copies of their papers.

22 Jan. 1875, Syn. List (1) Nymphales read for the Buffalo Bulletin. It is quite certain that this was written well after the Hist. Sketch.

Feb. 1875, Both papers were type-set and proofed; this date being entered on the Bulletin printer's sheet signatures. Scudder's Addenda had to be squeezed into p. 293 of the Proceedings; he could not spread because another paper (presented 9 Feb.) started on p. 294. The Addenda are headed "March 1875"; perhaps a deliberate insertion because;

[31 Mar.] 1875, Historical Sketch published! "Obtainable from the Salem Naturalist's Agency, Cambridge"; with original pagination, in light green wrappers, and note that it was extracted from the Proceedings. These were the author's 100 free copies, perhaps with additional ones paid for, wrapped by the Agency. This date is pretty accurate because; 19 Apr. 1875, Butler signed his review (Ent. mon. Mag. 12 : 15-17), written in England, of the Hist. Sketch, complete with its "March" Addenda.

[10 May] 1875 [+ or -] 3 weeks, Bulletin published. This was part (4), covering I Jan. to 31 Mar. 1875, and containing papers read up to 26 March. It cannot possibly have appeared before mid-April.

[7 Jun.] 1875 [+ or -] 1 week, Proceedings published. This was the complete Vol. 10 (alias New Series Vol. 2), covering the "Year ending 11 May 1875". This date is reasonably accurate because;22 June 1875, Proceedings "Vol. 10 (n.s. 2)" was received by post from the Academy by the Linnean Society of London, as recorded in their ms. Presents Register. It must be remembered that the post was much more regular and rapid in those days. Now it takes up to 6 weeks; then, for Butler's separate and for the Society's volume, it took about 15 days.

I am greatly indebted to the authorities of the Linnean Society for permission to study their Registers at leisure. They show that in earlier years the Academy sent out gatherings of loose sheets (not necessarily consecutive) of the Proceedings as they accrued, about 3 or 4 times a year. This did not happen in the case of volumes 9 and 10.

To summarize;

[31 March] 1875, historical Sketch (separate).

[20 Apr.-31 May] 1875, Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sci. 2 (4).

[1-10 June] 187S, Proc. Amer. Acad Arts Sci. 10.

after June, 1875 Mem. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 1.

If the above is correct, the Historical Sketch as such was certainly "published" within the meaning of the Code. It is possible that proofs or preprints from the Bulletin of the Syn. List (1) Nymphales (a paper undoubtedly written long after the Hint. Sketch) were also circulated by Scudder, but these may not have been properly "published" in the sense of being universally available. Research to establish the true position by those nearer the scene would be useful.

The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).

Learn more about Nymphalidae in Wikipedia

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

Senior name:
Doxocopa Hübner, 1819: 49.

Submit correction/addition