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

Genus details

Search again

Phoedinus Godman & Salvin, 1894 . Biol. centr.-amer. (Insecta. Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) 2 : 335.    [BHLBHL]

Junior Homonym

Homonyms: 1

Higher classification:

Eudamus caicus Herrich-Schäffer, 1869. Corresp.-Bl. zool.-min. Ver. Regensburg : 188.

Type-species designation:
by subsequent designation by Lindsey , 1921. Univ. Iowa Studies nat. Hist. 9(4): 35.    [BHLBHL]

Type specimens:
? Type status ? COUNTRY: ? Locality, (? Depository)..

Hemming (1967) stated:-

The name Phoedinus Godman & Salvin is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Phoedinus Guérin-Ménéville, 1838 (Rev. Zool. (Soc. Cuvier.) 1838 : 286). It has been replaced by the name Caicella Hemming, 1934.

Cowan (1970: 42) stated:-

"Phoedinus G. & S. is valid".

Cowan (1970: 53) stated:-

"PHOEDINUS and type-species - print bold as valid. Para 2 to read -

Under the present Code Phoedinus Godman & Salvin, 1894 is not homonymous with Phaedinus Duponchel, 1834 (Annls. Soc. ent. Fr. 3 : 38), proposed in that spelling ("Phédine, Phaedinus") and used (: 39) for one species, Phaedinus tricolor. That name was misspelt by the Indexer to that volume, Doumerc [1835] : 821 825, as "Phoedinus", which was not an emendation.

Duponchel redescribed the same genus and species in 1836 (Mag. zool 6 : pl. (Ins.) 149, text : 18), with the spelling Phaedinus in text but "Phoedinus" engraved on Annedouche's plate. Guérin-Méneville, 1838 (Rev. Zool. 1838 : 286) referred two species to that genus, which he misspelt "Phoedinus" with no evidence of emendation.

The Coleoptera genus is correctly (under the present Code) Phaedinus Duponchel, 1834, of which "Phoedinus" Doumerc, [1835] is a subsequent misspelling occasionally repeated. It is correctly listed by Agassiz, 1846 (Nomencl. zool. (11) (Coleop.) : 123) with no mention of the misspelling. Similarly by Scudder, 1882.

It is possible that an emendation has at some time been proposed. If so, it would have been unjustified and would retain its own date and authorship. It is unlikely to have been proposed before 1846, or Agassiz would have adjudicated on it. Nor before 1882, or Scudder would have noted it. Nor before 1894, or Godman & Salvin would not have used Phoedinus."

See also electronic Biologia centrali americana. Insecta. Lepidoptera-Rhopalocera volume 2

The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).

Learn more about Hesperiidae in Wikipedia

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

Senior name:
Caicella Hemming, 1934: 144.

Submit correction/addition