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

Genus details

Return to list  Search again

Baeotus Hemming, 1939 . Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 8(7) : 136.

Available Name

Homonyms: 1

Higher classification:

Megistanis beotus Doubleday, 1849. Gen. diurn. Lep. : pl.48, fig.2. [; Westwood, [Nov. 1850], in Doubleday, ibid. (2) : 312 (beotus emended to baeotus)]    [BHLBHL]

Type-species designation:
by original designation .

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

Hemming (1967) stated:-

The name Megistanis baeotus was first published - unfortunately as a manuscript name by Doubleday, 1844 (List. Spec. lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. 1 : 109), where, as shown, the first syllable was spelled "bae-". When it was first validly published by Doubleday in 1849 on plate 48, it appeared in the defective spelling "be-", which was however corrected to "bae-" by Westwood in the text of the same work published (in 1850) after Doubleday's death. This is considered to be a clear case of an original spelling "beotus" being demonstrably due to an inadvertent error. In accordance with the provisions of Article 32 (a) of the revised Code the spelling "baeotus" used in the text of the same work is the Correct Original Spelling. If however the view were to be taken that the spellings "beotus" and "baeotus" should be regarded as a pair of Incorrect Original Spellings and therefore that this case should be dealt with under Section (c) of Article 32 instead of under Section (a) of that Article, the spelling "baeotus" would still rank as the Correct Original Spelling, it having been used in preference to the spelling "beotus" by Westwood ; acting as First Reviser in 1850 (in the text of Doubleday's book).

The generic name Baeotus was introduced in order to provide an available name for the genus hitherto incorrectly known by the name Megistanis Doubleday, 1844. The latter is an available name but Scudder's selection in 1875 (Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 213) of Megistanis baeotus as type-species was invalid because at that time the name Megistanis baeotus was (as already noted) only a manuscript name, and no description or indication for it was then provided by Doubleday.

Cowan (1970: 42) stated:-

"BAEOTUS line 2 : "baeotus" to read - beotus [sic], [type-species].

A whole series of mishaps is here. Megistanis beotus was consistently so spelt by Doubleday; in 1844 : 109 (when it was a nomen nudum), and on plate 48 [1849] (when it became available). Westwood was inconsistent; using "baeotus" in [1850] : 312, and beotus in his Index to plates [1852] : ix.

The name must stand as Baeotus beotus Doubleday. The generic name is not eligible for emendation as it was deliberately so spelt.

The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).

Learn more about Nymphalidae in Wikipedia.

See images at Butterflies of America.

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

Submit correction/addition