ANNALES HISTORICO-NATURALES MUSEI NATIONALIS HUNGARICI Volume 93 Budapest, 2001 pp. 151-198.

Butterfly species-group taxa from the Balkans and western Anatolia attributed to Imre Frivaldszky (1799-1870) (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea & Papilionoidea)

Zs. BÁLINT & A. OLIVIER*

Department of Zoology, Hungarian Natural History Museum Baross utca 13, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary e-mail: [email protected] *Luitenant Lippenslaan 43 B 14, B-2140 Antwerpen, Belgium e-mail: [email protected]

BÁLINT, ZS. & OLIVIER., A (2001): Butterfly species-group taxa from the Balkans and western Anatolia attributed to Imre Frivaldszky (1799-1870) (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea & Papilionoidea). - Annales historico-naturales Musei nationalis hungarici 93: 151-198.

Abstract - Twenty-one butterfly species group taxa, the authorship of which has been traditionally attributed to FRIVALDSZKY by classical XlXth century lepidopterists, though validly described for the first time either by FREYER (eleven taxa), HERRICII-SCHÄFFER (seven taxa) or FRIVALDSZKY himself (three taxa), are discussed in the context of historical material provided to the first two work­ ers, either directly or indirectly, by FRIVALDSZKY and referred to as such in their works as well as in those of other contemporary authors. Special attention is further paid to the Frivaldszky Insect Col­ lection, currently deposited in the Hungarian Natural History Museum and to its Catalogue (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a). Five nomina nuda have been published by FRIVALDSZKY before any valid and available description appeared for the taxon in question, eight afterwards. Syntypes are deter­ mined here for the nominal taxa Lycena [sic!] eroides FRIVALDSZKY, 1835 and Chilades trochylus var. grisea ABAFI-AlGNER, 1906, while the type locality of nine nominal taxa is either determined or corrected and one new synonym is established. With 15 figures.

Key words - Lepidoptera, Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea, Frivaldszky, Balkan Peninsula, Anatolia.

INTRODUCTION

In the first half of the XlXth century the Ottoman Empire still ruled the whole of south-eastern Europe, presently known as the Balkans, and had a common bor­ der with the Habsburg domain that extended over several hundred kilometres. In this period started the classical epoch of entomology, not only in the various inde­ pendent "Herzogtums" of the German Federation, but also in Hungary and Transylvania, then being annexed by the Habsburgs to the Austro-Hungarian Em- pire. Amongst the Hungarian nobility, there were some talented people who, hop­ ing for a better future for their country, started setting up institutions for a self-ruled Hungary, vigorously cultivating the social and scientific life of their na­ tion. One such person was IMRE FRIVALDSZKY (1799-1870) (EMERICUS FRL VALDSKY in Latin; he is occasionally quoted as EMMERICH VON FRIVALDZKY in German literature), the nestor of Hungarian entomology. He was also a well-known correspondent with and friend of his contemporary entomologists, many of them already classical lepidopterists like JEAN BAPTISTE ALPHONSE DECHAUFFOUR DE BOISDUVAL (1799-1879), CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH FREYER (1794-1885), PAUL BERNHARD GERHARD (1824-18..?), GOTTLIEB AUGUST WILHELM HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1799-1874) and GEORG FRIEDRICH TREITSCHKE (1776-1842). He also supplied material for the well-known German insect dealers JOHANN GEORG BISCHOFF (1805-1880) and HEINRICH HEYDENREICH (18..?-l 897). The first author found manuscript notes proving that FRIVALDSZKY and GERHARD indeed corresponded, but available data do not indicate contacts prior to October 1853, denoting that these took place after the publication of the last instalment of GERHARD'S "Versuch einer Monographie der europäischen Schmetterlingsarten: Thecla, Polyomattus [sie], Lycaena, Nemeobius. Als Beitrag zur Schmetter­ lingskunde" (cf. OLIVIER 1999).

FRIVALDSZKY exchanged specimens and literature with his contemporaries. Having this network of colleagues, he could build up a large collection of insects and an entomological library, which in his time was incomparable to any other within Hungary. First he purchased the collection of TOBIAS KOY (1757-1829) and started to develop his own collection in a similar manner to KOY's method (and obviously also ESPER'S, see HACKER 1998, pl. N, fig. 15 and pi. O, fig. 11), preserving specimens in individual boxes (Fig. 2). Later, when he could trace the Lepidoptera collection of FERDINAND OCHSENHEIMER (1787-1822) in 1823 and the TREITSCHKE collection in 1842, he started to apply "new" methods pinning and labelling specimens, preserving them in drawers of large cabinets. His insect col­ lections were acquired in 1864 by the Hungarian State and became the cor­ ner-stone of the Department of Zoology of the present-day Hungarian Natural His­ tory Museum (HNHM). At its delivery, FRIVALDSZKY's collection contained 11,372 specimens representing 3,189 European Lepidoptera species (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a) and 588 specimens representing 366 exotic ones (FRIVALDSZKY 1864/;). Presently, the Lepidoptera collection of the Department of Zoology houses more than two million Lepidoptera specimens, but much original FRIVALDSZKY mate­ rial turned out to have been lost over the past 150 years. In order to avoid further losses of material of such historical importance, FRIVALDSZKY's specimens are presently being transferred from the general collection into an independent collec­ tion of its own. FRIVALDSZKY was the first person whose interest for natural history objects materialised with the organisation of a series of pioneer scientific expeditions to the Balkans and western Anatolia, for which he sent collectors to the European part of Turkey (East Rumelia, now a part of Bulgaria) already in the mid-1830's. In 1833, a team of collectors conducted by the Hungarian ANDRÁS FÜLE* was sent to East Rumelia, where they had their headquarters near Slivno. During the following years East Rumelia was revisited by FRIVALDSZKY's collectors (AIGNER-AB AFI 1897: 6-7; REBEL 1903: 151). ALBERT KlNDERMANN Jr. collected in 1836 and 1837 near Constantinople (now Istanbul) and Brussa (now Bursa, cf. fLEDERER] 1860: 252), presumably mandated by FRIVALDSZKY (STAUDINGER 1878: 180; see also OLIVIER 2000/?: 413). In 1843, IMRE FRIVALDSZKY sent FRANZ ZACH to Crete, after whom he also sent ANDREAS TERREN and JÁNOS FRIVALDSZKY the next year (STAUDINGER 1870: 5; REBEL 1916: 90). In 1845, the three of them went to Smyrna (now Izmir), TERREN staying there and ZACH and JÁNOS FRIVALDSZKY continuing to Brussa, where they collected extensively, especially on the nearby "Olymp" (now Uludag). Several new species found there were described by

FRIVALDSZKY, FREYER and HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (STAUDINGER 1878: 180).

Meanwhile, IMRE FRIVALDSZKY carried out extensive explorations within the ter­ ritory of historical Hungary, especially in Upper Hungary (= Slovakia), in Pannónia (= Hungary) and in the Banat (SE Carpathians, Romania)) (AlGNER- ABAFI 1897: 8). In 1846, he traveled to Rustschuk, Varna, Slivno and Constantino­ ple (REBEL 1903: 151). He concentrated not only on collecting but he also paid a special effort on publishing. This resulted in a series of lengthy works on the Bal­ kan expeditions (FRIVALDSZKY 1835, 1837a, b, 1840, 1845) and monographs on the Hungarian fauna (FRIVALDSZKY 1865, 1868a, b). The main body of these works is entirely in Hungarian"', containing expedition reports, with a separate list of novelties and rarities (Fig. 1 ). Descriptions of new taxa appeared always both in Latin and Hungarian (Figs 3-4). Most regrettably, the Lepidoptera collection and scientific papers of FRIVALDSZKY have remained unknown or received little attention from pres­ ent-day lepidopterists (cf. LEESTMANS 1988: 390-391). The following three ex­ amples demonstrate this situation well:

(1) Although FRIVALDSZKY is listed amongst classical lepidopterists (KUDRNA & WlEMERS 1990: 45), in the concise bibliography of European butterflies (KUDRNA 1985) there is not a single FRIVALDSZKY title.

Spelled erroneously as "Andreas Fülle" by REBEL (1903: 151). Except publications dated 1837a, 1868a and 1 868/J. These are German extracts or translations of the 1835 paper ( 1 8376) and the book of 1865 (1868a, b). (2) The most recent and comprehensive faunistic work on Bulgarian butter­ flies includes only a brief mention of FRIVALDSZKY (ABADJIEV 1992:17), while the references he gives are incorrect (ABADJIEV 1992: 67) or even fictitious

(ABADJIEV 1993: 81).*

(3) HESSELBARTH et al. ( 1995), compiling their fundamental opus on the but­ terflies of Turkey, also failed to study FRIVALDSZKY's papers, with as an outcome some minor errors, misunderstandings or misleading consequences (see Results). The present work does not deal with the systematic exploration of the Hun­ garian or the Balkan fauna pioneered by FRIVALDSZKY**, but concentrates only on the butterfly names (papilionoids and hesperioids) appearing in FRIVALDSZKY's Balkan reports or on names attributed in one way or another to him, either as author or as supplier of type material and published in books by contemporary lepidopter­ ists. It is hoped that the present paper will stimulate the interest of colleagues for the entomological expeditions organised and sponsored by FRIVALDSZKY and that his results will be appreciated rightly in the context of the history of the lepidopterological explorations of the Balkans and western Anatolia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant taxa occurring in the Balkans and western Anatolia, or endemic to Crete, are listed in the same systematic order as in HESSELBARTH et al. (1995). Quotations from FRIVALDSZKY's Balkan reports and from contemporary sources somehow related to FRIVALDSZKY's data or personality, are listed in chronological order and then commented in the light of the evidences, type material and the FRIVALDSZKY Insect Collection. Square brackets are still used here to include the year of publication when es­ tablished after external sources, although this is no longer recommended in the cur­ rent edition of the Code. When the year of publication has been established after the printed dates on the original wrappers that contained the various instalments of FREYER's "Neuere Beiträge zur Schmetterlingskunde mit Abbildungen nach der Natur" (cf. TREMEWAN 1988, OLIVIER 2000/?) and of HERRICH-SCHÄFFER'S "Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von Europa, zugleich als Text, Revision und Supplement zu Jakob Hübner's Sammlung europäischer Schmetter­ linge" (cf. HEMMING 1937), this information is not considered as coming from an external source and hence no square brackets are included.

"Frivaldsky, I. 1845. Catalog der Coleoptera, Lepidoptera und Konchylien des Balkans. Budae". ** The monograph on FRIVALDSZKY's Lepidoptera is under preparation.

Annls hist.-nat. Mus. nain, huni; 9\ RESULTS

Spialia phlomidis (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1845)

"Hesperia Phlomidis Friv." - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1845, Hesperides 1(11): 153; 1(12): pi. Hesperides 2, figs 8, 9; 1846, 1(13): 164; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 6; 1854, 1(65): Index 19; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 16. "bundi busók (Hesperia phlomidis Fr.)"- FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177, nonien nudum. "Syrichthus Phlomidis H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 326. "Syricthus Phlomidis Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 17.

"HesperiaphlomidisFriw." - BERGE 1851: 150, pl. 32, fig. 5. "Hesperia (Syricthus) Phlomidis H.-Sch." - LEDERER 1852: 26. "Hesperia Pap.[ilio] Phlomitis" - FREYER 1854, 7(105): 41, pi. 621, fig. 4.

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1845, Hesperides 1 (11): 153) described this taxon from an unstated number of specimens (only males were figured) "Von Herrn von Fri­ valdszky aus der Türkei". In the legend to pi. 2 (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1846, Hes­ perides 1(13): 164), he specified that they were collected "Aus der Türkei am Marmorameer, in Juni; von Hrn. Dr. Frivaldszky an Hrn. Keferstein gesendet" (from the coast of the Sea of Marmara, Turkey, originating from FRIVALDSZKY via KEFERSTEIN). This concords with the report of FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 177), who mentions that the material was taken near "Brussa". He attributed the authorship of the species to himself and published the name phlomidis without any description or illustration. The source for BERGE (1851: 150) and HEYDENREICH (1851: 17) was

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER. KEFERSTEIN (1851: 326) and LEDERER (1852: 26) were the first who attributed the authorship to HERRICH-SCHÄFFER. HERRICH-SCHÄFFER'S instalments 11 and 12 were already published by 3 LX. 1845 (DOHRN 1845: 307 re­ ports as new for the society's library a.o. "Hesperid. Taf. 1-3" and "Geom. Taf. ... 9-20", i.e. until Heft 12, cf. HEMMING 1937: 585, 587), while no precise dating ex­ ists for FRIVALDSZKY's work, that thus has to be considered as published on 31.XII.1845 (cf. ICZN, Art. 21.3). Finally, FREYER (1854, 7(105): 41) described "Hesperia Pap.filio] Phlomitis" after material collected by KlNDERMANN in Amasia, thus well after the description by HERRICH-SCHÄFFER. According to HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 203), the type material of Spialia phlomidis (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1845) has been lost. In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), four specimens originating from "Turc." ( Turkey) are listed under the serial num- 246 ÉRTEKEZÉSEK.

Budai bíbordi. Purpuricenus budensis. Götz. Vörhenyegeslábú körtor. Dinodes rufipes. Bonel. Fel darás lapacs. Cycrus semigranosus. Dahl. Hárántos rejtény. Tenebrio transversalis. Duft. Fogaslábú tüsketop. Acantopus dentipes. Pzer. Változékony paizsda. Cassida variabilis. Dhl.

B) Közösek a" Balkánynyal, és Tauriával, a) Növények: Füzlevelii kacskanyak. Ajuga salicifolia. Linn. lberi montika. Anthémis Iherica. Marsch. Bieb. Sárga magzating. Asphodelus luteus. Linn. Tatár csüküllö. Centaurea tatarica. Linn. Kaukazi kikerics. Colchicum caucasicum. Spreng. Gumós gerely. Geranium tuberosum. Linn. Csomós derczefü. Gypsophilla glomerata. Mar. Bieb. Európai olmoncz. Plumbago europaea. Linn. Erdesmagú szironták. Ranunculus oxyspermus. Mar. Bieb. CsükülMd sikkantyú. Scabiosa centaurioides Tömött sziléne. Silène compacta. Mars. Bieb. Keleti szigoraik Veronica orientális. Ait. Szász metény. Vinca herbacea. AVald. Kit. b) Rovarok : Vonalas gyorsod. Cyinindis lineata. Schönh. Hátas gyorsod. * s dorsalis. Fisch. Homályos tagoncz. Ditomus obscurus. Stév. Rezesfejü szalangál. Chlaenius aeneoeephalus. Dej. Jegyeitnyakú pompaly. Buprestis signaticollis. Frivald. Csíkos szipoly. Anisoplia lineolata. Dej. Lapos szípolyr. *= s depressa. Stév. Róka bozont. Amphicoma vulpes, Fab. Kaukázi övcsd. Zonitis caucasica. Gall. Vörösfejü izgoncz. Lytta erythrocephala. Nyaklós izgoncz. * * collaris. F.

Fig. 1. Part of p. 246 of FRIVALDSZKY ( 1835); comparing different floristic and faunistic elements of the Balkans and Tauria TŐRÖKHOflBAB. 187 szemcsével, a hátsók sötét-barna habosak, közepükön egy ives fogas fehér szalag. Szélzete fogas, fehér- s barnn-tarkás. Hazája Kréta szigete, az Ida és Sphakia hegység ormain. Amallhea pilleng. (Hipparchia Amallhea Fr.) 3-ik Táb.

Díszített napiász. (Heliolis dccorala Fr.) 3-ik Táb. 2-ikábra nagyított felniről, a) alulról l>) termeszeU nagysága. fiel. Alis atuicii coernlescenti purpuréit, fasciis duaàus transrersalibus pallidioribus : postiris flaris, fascia margimili ni­ gra, alis suhlus purpurea, nigra, pallida, ßaroque variis. Csápja fonál-képii, barna, nyaklói s torja, violn-szintlek, szőrösek, teste felül fekete, nlúl s végső gyűrűje hosszú piros szőrökkel. Előszárnya sötétes viola-kék. két halavány viola-szinti haránlos szalaggal, mellyek közöl a külső terjedelmesebb s in­ kább föltűnő, szélzete fehér; kátső szárnyai narancs-sárgák, tövük, s félkörös-szélük bársony-fekete szegéllyel, szélzetük piros. Alulról az elöszárny töve, közép-tájon egy bárom szüg- ded-foll a halavány-sárga talajon, s külszélének hátsó fele bár­ sony-feketék, előszélé, s hegye eleven-piros; a hátsószárny alól szinte narancs-sárga, félig eleven-piros, félig pedig selyem- fekete szalaggal beszegve. Lábai feketék, hosszú piros bojtokkal. lirussa vidékén egy példányban találtatott. Amallhea pillcng. (Hipparchia Amallhea Fr.) 3-ik Táb. 3-ik ábra, hím. Hipp. Alis denlalis ftiscis, fascia al/ücanle transversa, anti- carttm stigmate oblongo alto , coerulescenie, ocellist/ite duobtu subpnpillalis ; alti sutitus allio-maculatis, fuscoijiie-irroratis. Teste s szárnyai barnák, előszárnyán egy hosszas sötét­ kékbe játszó bélyeg, egy habos fehéres széles szalag, melly 1 barna vonalkák által 5 egyenetlen részre oszlik, ennek kül-szé- libe két fehér látkás fekete szemcse félig sárgásán környezve; hátsó szárnya barna mintegy az elöszárnyaklól folytatott fehéres

Figs 2-5. 2 = Specimens of Lycerta [sic] Sephirus (FRIVALDSZKY, 1835) showing the arrangement of FRIVALDSZKY's collection, following KOY's method; above = male, below = "female", which is actually a male specimen of Plebeius (Kretania) eurypilus (FREYER, 1851); Pages 186-187 of FRIVALDSZKY 1845; bilingual descriptions of Lepidoptera: 3 = page 186, 4 = page 187; 5 = Colour plate 3 of FRIVALDSZKY 1845 Figs 6-11. 6-7 = Lampides balcanica FREYER ab. Frivaldszkyi AIGNER-ABAFI, 1906: 6 = holotype underside, 7 = labels; 8-9 = Chilades troehylus FREYER var. grisea AIGNER-AB AFI, 1906: 8 = male syntype, upperside, 9 = label; 10-11 = Lycena [sie!] eroides FRIVALDSZKY, 1835: 10 = syntype, male, upperside; 11= labels ber 473 as "Syricthus [sic!] Phlomidis Friv". Only one single male specimen from this series could be located in the HNHM.

Anthocharis gruneri HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1851

"Gruner-féle virma (Anthocaris Gruneri Fr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 170, 177; nomen nudum.

"Pontia Gruneri, Frivaldszky, MSS" - [DOUBLEDAY] 1848: 9; nomen nudum. "[Anthocharis] GruneriBoisd. in litt" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1851, [Papilio- nides] 6(48): 20; 1(51): pl. Papilionides 115, figs 551-554; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 4; 1854, 1(65): Index 12; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 10. "Pontia Pap.filio] Gruneru - FREYER 1851, 6(96): 150, pi. 575, figs 1, 2. "Anthocharis Gruneri Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 17. "Anthocharis Grunerii H.-Sch" - LEDERER 1852: 18,31.

FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 170) reported the occurrence of the species from Mace­ donia and further also from the vicinity of "Brussa" (FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177), publishing the name without description or illustration. [DOUBLEDAY] (1848: 9) cited FRIVALDSZKY's name as in litteris, giving "Bosphorus" as collecting locality of specimens sent by FRIVALDSZKY to the Natural History Museum, London (BMNH), further mentioning the name as a synonym of "Anthocharis damone Boisd.". HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1851, [Papilionides] 6(48): 20) attributed the name to BOISDUVAL and indicated the type locality as "Von der Insel Kreta?", thus ques­ tioning the authenticity of this locality. It appears plausible that the material was collected in 1845 near "Brussa" by FRANZ ZACH and JÁNOS FRIVALDSZKY, after they had left Crete via Smyrna, along with ANDREAS TERREN (cf. STAUDINGER 1878: 180), and that the record "Crete" was the result of a mixed-up of data, as the species has never been mentioned again from that island. Another possibility is that the material originated from ALBERT KlNDERMANN Jr., who collected near Bursa in 1836 and 1837 ([LEDERER] 1860: 252), and that the name gruneri was chosen by KlNDERMANN, who received considerable financial support from OTTO GRUNER from 1838 on (STAUDINGER 1866: 310). It is further known that BOIS­ DUVAL obtained much of his Turkish butterfly material via KlNDERMANN (cf. KEFERSTEIN 1840: 167!). The specimens studied by FREYER (1851, 6(96): 150) could not originate from FRIVALDSZKY, as the given type locality is "bei Amasia". The source of this material was certainly KlNDERMANN, who collected near Amasia in 1848 and 1849 ([LEDERERI 1860: 252-253). LEDERER (1852: 18) was the first to list HERRTCI-1-SCHÄFFER as author. BERNARDI (1970: 8) proposed Amasia as being the correct type locality of gruneri, further commenting that the indication "Crete" is incorrect and that only FREYER mentioned the right locality. BERNARDI's action is mistaken as far as HERRICI-1-SCHÄFFER'S taxon is concerned (vide supra). The type locality of [Anthocharis] Gruneri HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1851 is corrected here as "Turkey, Bursa province, Bursa" (IZCN, Recommendation 76A).

According to HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 361), the type material of both gruneri HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1851 and grunerii FREYER, 1851 is lost. It has not been possible to establish the date of publication of both names more precisely than as being 1851 (OLIVIER 2000/?: 433 and OLIVIER in prep.). Therefore, along with HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 361) we consider, for the sake of continuity, Pontia Pap.[ilio] Grunerii FREYER, 1851 as a junior secundary homonym of [Anthocharis] Gruneri HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1851 (cf. ICZN, Art. 58.14). It is ob­ vious that HERRICH-SCHÄFFER consistently applied the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature and ascribed it to the genus Anthocharis, introducing it with the statement "pg. 101. nach Damone:", likewise all the "whites" on pp. 97-101 of volume 1 of his work are placed in this genus (cf. ICZN, Art. 11.4).

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1 864A), four specimens originating from "Turc." (Turkey) are listed under the serial number 56 as "Anthocharis Gruneri Friv.". These specimens (three males, one female) have all been located in the HNHM.

Tarucus balkanicus (FREYER, [1843])

"LycaenaVi\p.[\\\o] Balkanicd' — FREYER [1843], 5(71): 63, pl. 421, figs 1,2. "Lycaena Psittacuf - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1844, Papilionides 1(7): pi. 48, figs 220-223; 1845, 1(10): 129; 1(11): 162; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1854, 1(65): Index 5, 20; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 3, 17.

"kajdács toportyán {Lycaena psittacus Fr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 176; nomen nudum.

"Lycaena Psittacus, Friv. & Herrich.Schaeffer" - [DOUBLEDAY] 1847: 41. "Lycaena Psittacus Kind." - GERHARD [1850], (3): 7, pi. 11, fig. 3a, b, c. "Lycaena PsittacusH. S." (= "BalcanicaFr.") - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 311 ; sub­ sequent misspelling of balkanica. "Lycaena Psittacus Friv." (= "Balkanica Fr.") - HEYDENREICH 1851: 15.

"Lycaena Balcanica Freyer " (= Psittacus H.-Sch.) - LEDERER 1852: 19, 35.

FREYER ([1843], 5(71): 63) described this butterfly as "Lycaena. Pap.[ilio] Balkanica'' from an unstated number of male and female specimens he received from "Hrn. Schmidt in Laybach" (now Ljubljana in Slovenia). FERDINAND SCHMIDT was a founder fellow of Természettudományi Társulat (Natural History

Society), as was FRIVALDSZKY. They were corresponding, and most probably

FRIVALDSZKY exchanged or sold specimens to him. FREYER mentioned that

FRIVALDSZKY's collectors found the species in "Turkey". By 1843, the relevant material could have been collected by collectors sent by FRIVALDSZKY to the Eu­ ropean part of Turkey (including East Rumelia) in the mid-1830's (HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 543 quote as locus typicus "'Türkei' [Balkan-Halbinsel]"), though it is also possible that the relevant material was collected by KlNDERMANN in 1836 and 1837, either near Constantinople or near Brussa, or in both localities (vide supra). HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1844, Papilionides 1(7), pi. 48, figs 220-223) figured the nominal taxon Lycaena Psittacus and, the next year (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1845, 1(10): 129), described it with FRIVALDSZKY's authorship on the basis of male and female specimens sent to him by KEFERSTEIN and BlSCHOFF, originating "Aus der Türkei, auch von der asiatischen Seite". Subsequently, HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1845, 1(1 1 ): 162) specified "Am Marmorameere im Mai" as the origin of the specimens he had figured. The figured specimens having been collected before 1845, their or­ igin was thus apparently KlNDERMANN via FRIVALDSZKY. FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 176) reported the occurrence of "LycaenapsittacusFr." on the "Mount Cordylion" (near Izmir in Turkey). As he gives no description or illustration, his name is a nomen nudum. [DOUBLEDAY] (1847: 41) erroneously lists psittacus under the au­ thorship of "Frivaldszky & Herrich-Schaeffer", further giving "Crete" as place of origin. GERHARD ([1850], (3): 7) quoted the name psittacus under KlNDERMANN's authorship, stating explicitly: "Dieser schöne Falter wurde von Herrn Kindermann in der Türkei entdeckt, und ist seitdem vielfach versandt". HEYDENREICH (1851:

15) and KEFERSTEIN (1851: 311) listed psittacus and balkanicus as synonyms.

LEDERER (1852: 35) pointed out that FREYER'S "balcanica" has priority.

According to HESSELBARTH et al, ( 1995: 543), the depository of the type ma­ terial of balkanicus is unknown; interestingly, they do not list the name psittacus as a synonym. Actually, psittacus is erroneously listed as a synonym of theophrastus (FABRICIUS, 1793) in BRIDGES ( 1994:VIII.387), following EVANS (1955: 185). It is likely that the type material of psittacus is lost (cf. NEKRUTENKO 2000: 314). In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection, eight specimens origi­ nating from "Turc." (Turkey) are listed under the serial number 115 as "Lycaena Psittacus Friv.". Only three males and two females from this series could be lo­ cated in the HNHM. One of the females (Figs 6-7) is the holotype of Lampides balcanica FREYER ab. Frivaldszkyi AlGNER-ABAFl, 1906 (cf. AIGNER-AB AFI, 1906«: 514, pl. XIV, fig. 4). Pseudophilotes bavius egea (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1852)

"Lycaena Bavius" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1847, Papilionides 1(26): pl. 74, figs 357-360. "[Lycaena] Egea Friv. - Bavius'- HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1852, Papilionides 6(55): 25-26, Syst. Lep. Eur. 5.; 1854, 1(65): Index 5; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 3.

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1847, Papilionides 1(26): pl. 74, figs 357-360) first figured the taxon as "Lycaena Bavius \ but later (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1852, 6(55): 25-26) described it as "Egea Friv." from an unstated number of male and fe­ male specimens "Aus der Türkei". It is obvious that HERRICH-SCHÄFFER consis­ tently applied the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature and ascribed it to the ge­ nus Lycaena, introducing it with the statement "pg. 120. nach Bavius:'", likewise all the "blues" in volume 1 of his work are placed in this genus (cf. ICZN, Art. 11.4). He apparently considered egea as infraspecific as he states (p. 25): "Ich glaube kaum, dass ein specifischer Unterschied von Bavius statt findet". The attri­ bution of this name to FRIVALDSZKY points to the latter being the likely provider of the material figured in 1847. The name egea is not mentioned in any of FRIVALDSZKY's publications, who listed specimens from both southern Russia and western Turkey in his catalogue under the same entry as bavius (see below). According to HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 565), no extant type material is known (see also NEKRUTENKO 2000: 243). They consider that the Uludag is the probable type locality: this is quite possible (vide supra), but not proven. In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), four specimens are listed from "Baskir, Brussa" (Russia, Baskhiria and Turkey, Bursa) under the serial number 151 as "Lycaena Bavius Evers.". None of these specimens could be located in the HNHM.

Chilades trochylus (FREYER, [1844])

"Lycaena Pap.[ilio] Trochylus' - FREYER [ 1844], 5(74): 98-99, pi. 440, fig 1. "L.[ycaena] Trochilus"-HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1844, Papilionides I(7): pi. 48, figs 224, 225, pi. 49, fig. 226; 1845, 1(10): 128; 1(11): 162; 1852,6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1855, 1(66): Index 24; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 21. "delicze toportyán (Lycaena trochylusFr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 174, 176; nomen nudum. "LycaenaTrochilus, Friv. & Herrich-Schaeffer" - [DOUBLEDAY] 1847: 50. "Lycaena trochilus. Friw." - BERGE 1851: 157, pl. 33, fig. 20. "Lycaena Trochäus H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 31 1. "Lycaena Trochäus Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 14. "Lycaena Trochäus Kind." - GERHARD [1851], (4): 9, pi. 16, fig. 3a, b, c. "Lycaena Trochäus Freyer, H.-Sch." - LEDERER 1852: 19.

FREYER ([1844], 5(74): 99) described this taxon on the basis of an unstated number of male and female specimens "durch Dr. Frivaldszky in der europäischen Türkey gefunden", that he obtained from WEIßENBORN. It thus appears likely that KlNDERMANN collected this material (vide supra), the more as this butterfly is un­ known from areas covered by IMRE FRIVALDSZKY's collectors in the Balkans.

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1844, Papilionides 1(7): pi. 48, figs 224, 225, pi. 49, fig. 226) figured "L.[ycaena] Trochäus" and, the next year, described it (p. 128), as­ cribing the authorship to FRIVALDSZKY, after an unstated number of male and fe­ male specimens from "Türkei ... Kleinasien", sent by KEFERSTEIN and BlSCHOFF.

Subsequently, HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1845, 1(11): 162) specified "Am Marmora- meere im Mai" as the origin of the specimens he had figured: therefore, they appar­ ently have the same origin as his material of psittacus (vide supra). FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 174, 176) reported the occurrence of the species on Crete (p. 174) and on the "Mount Cordylion" (p. 176), introducing his name as a nomen nudum. [DOUBLE- DAY] ( 1847: 50) listed "Lycaena Trochäus" under the authorship of FRIVALDSZKY and HERRICH-SCHAEFFER, giving "Turkey" as place of origin. BERGE (1851: 157) based himself solely on HERRICH-SCHÄFFER. HEYDENREICH (1851: 14) was the last who attributed the authorship to FRIVALDSZKY. GERHARD ([1851], (4): 9) stated that this species was discovered several years ago by KlNDERMANN, further corroborating previous evidence. KEFERSTEIN (1851: 311) gave priority to HERRlCH-SCHÄFFER's trochilus, but LEDERER (1852: 19) was the first in attribut­ ing the authorship to FREYER, albeit with the spelling trochilus too. It has not been possible to establish the date of publication of both trochylus FREYER and trochilus HERRICH-SCHÄFFER more precisely than as being 1844 (OLIVIER 2000/x 430 and

OLIVIER in prep.). Therefore, as FREYER'S name enjoys general acceptance among present-day lepidopterists, we consider, for the sake of continuity, L.[ycaena]

Trochilus HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1844 as a junior subjective synonym and a junior primary homonym of Lycaena Pap.plio] Trochylus FREYER, [1844] (cf. ICZN,

Art. 58.2; see also HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 586, who considered trochilus to be an incorrect subsequent spelling).

According to HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 586), the depository of the type ma­ terial is unknown. In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), six specimens originating from "Turc." (Turkey) are listed under the serial number 120 as "Lycaena Trochylus Friv.". Only one single male from this series could be located in the HNHM. Although it is not directly relevant to the present subject, i.e. the Frivaldszky Insect Collection, we would like to comment on a taxon described from Cyprus, that was previously overlooked by the second author in a study dealing a.o. with endemism in butterflies from the Eastern Aegean islands and Cyprus (cf. OLIVIER 1993). "Chilades trochylus FIT. var grisea" was described by AlGNER-ABAFl (1906b: 209) from an unstated number of specimens collected by ISTVÁN BOGDÁN on Cyprus. The type series most probably contained only males because AlGNER- ABAFI based the diagnosis on the greyish dorsum of the wings which generally characterizes the males. One single male specimen could be located in the HNHM, which was collected by BOGDÁN on Cyprus and thus can be considered as a syntype with certainity. This specimen (Figs 8-9) is formally determined here as syntype and has the following label "Chilades trochylus var. I grisea Aigner-Abafi, 1906 I SYNTYPUS I det. Bálint & Olivier, 2001 " (on red paper). The taxon was men­ tioned as an aberration by BANG-HAAS (1927: 80) and as "Rasse" by BOLLOW (1931: 253). BRIDGES (1994: IX.26) listed the name grisea as available but in sub­ jective synonymy of Chilades (Freyeria) trochylus and with BANG-HAAS as source. The greyish dorsal suffusion of male trochylus varies individually and it is a common phenomenon all over its range (cf. HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: pl. 100, figs 5-18 for Anatolia), having no diagnostic value. As topotypic specimens of trochylus and grisea cannot be distinguished with the help of any diagnostic char­ acter, the synonymy Lycaena trochylus FREYER, [1844] = Chilades trochylus grisea AIGNER-AB AFI, 1906 is confirmed here.

Plebeius' (Plehejides) sephirus (FRIVALDSZKY, 1835)

"Sephir Boglárka. Lycena [sic!] Sephirus. Frivald." - FRIVALDSZKY 1835: 269-270, pl. VII, figs 1, 2. "Lycaena cephirus" [sic!] - FRIVALDSZKY 1837/^: 90; subsequent misspell­ ing. "Lycaena Hesperica v. Zephyrus, Kinderm." - BOISDUVAL 1840: 12; nomen nudum. "L. lycaena] Zephyrus" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1843, Papilionides 1(1): pi. 4, figs 20, 21; 1844, 1(7): pi. 46, figs 208-211; 1845, 1(10): 126; 1(11): 160, 162; 1852, 6(55): 29, Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1855, 1(66): Index 24; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 23.

Plebeius KLUK, 1780 = Plebejus KLUK, 1802 - it is the latter spelling which is on the Official List of Generic Names, cf. ICZN Opinion 278, nr. 705 (but see HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 588). "zefir toportyán (Lycaena zephyrus¥r.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 165.

"Lycaena Zephyrus, Friv. & Herrich-Schaeffer" - [DOUBLEDAY] 1847: 50.

"Lycaena zephyrus. Friw." - BERGE 1851: 157, pl. 33, fig. 19.

"Lycaena Alexis Var. b Zephyrus Bd." - KEFERSTEIN 1851:310.

"Lycaena Zephyrus Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 14.

"Lycaena ZephyrusKind" - GERHARD [1851], (8): 17, pi. 29, fig. 3a, b, c.

"Lycaena Pap.[ilio] Zephyrus' - FREYER 1851, 6(97): 154, pl. 577, fig. 3.

"Lycaena Zephyrus'Friv." - MEYER-DÜR 1852: 67-68.

"Lycaena Zephyrus H.-Sch." - LEDERER 1852: 20.

FRIVALDSZKY (1835: 269-270) described this species from an unstated num­ ber of male and female specimens from the territory of present-day Bulgaria, giv­ ing the type locality as "a Balkány aljas mezein" (at the foothills of the Balkan Mts). Later, he is somewhat more precise, listing the species amongst the material originating form the northern and southern regions of "Mt. Haemus" (eastern range of the Balkan Mts, near Sliven) (FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 165). BoiSDUVAL ( 1840: 12) listed "zephyrus", under the authorship of KlNDERMANN, as a variation of hespericus from "Russia m." (southern Russia), without any description or illus­ tration. The only male specimen BOISDUVAL examined was in the possession of D. CONTAMINE, who most probably received the specimen from KlNDERMANN.

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1843: Papilionides 1(1): pi. 4, figs 20, 21 ; 1844: 1(7): pi. 46, figs. 208-21 1) figured "L.\ycaena \ Zephyrus", then described it (HERRICH-SCHÄF- FER, 1845: 1(10): 126) from an unstated number of male and female specimens "Aus der Türkei, im Juni und Juli am südlichen Abhänge des Balkangebirges ziemlich häufig. Von Herrn Keferstein und Herrn von Frivaldszky" (From Turkey, in June and July moderately common on the southern slopes of the Balkan Mts [that belonged to the Ottoman Empire, hence the mention "Turkey"]), also men­ tioning a distinct form ("Abart") figured on figs 20, 21, as well as a male from "Kleinasien" (i.e. Asia Minor) he obtained from BlSCHOFF, that he thought to be a variation, but that obviously had lost its gleaming blue ground-colour during the relaxation. Subsequently, HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1845: 1(11): 160) commented "Eine Varietät vom Balkan" about the specimens previously figured on figs 20 and

21. KEFERSTEIN (1851: 310) quoted "Zephyrus" under the authorship of BOIS­

DUVAL as variation of alexis (alexis SCOPOLI, 1763 is a junior primary homonym of alexis PODA, 1761 and a senior subjective synonym of icarus ROTTEMBURG, 1775), curiously listing various taxa (eg. escheri, hesperica) as alexis variations.

GERHARD ([1851], (8): 17) indicated KINDERMANN as author of material from

"Türkei" and FREYER (1851, 6(97): 154) also received his material from this col­ lector, without commenting on its origin. LEDERER (1852: 20) attributed the au- thorship of zephyrus to HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, while making no mention at all of FRIVALDSZKY's first Balkan report, though it is cited by HEYDENREICH ( 1851: 1 ), albeit with a lot of misspellings. MEYER-DÜR (1852: 67-68) attributed the author­ ship of this taxon, under the name zephyrus, to FRIVALDSZKY.

The type locality of Lycena [sic!] Sephirus FRIVALDSZKY, 1835 is "moun­ tains nears Sliven (eastern Balkan Mts.)" (vide supra; see also REBEL 1903: 187;

BÁLINT & KERTÉSZ 1990: 197). According to HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 591), no extant type material of sephirus is known. In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1 864A), eight specimens originating from "Russ, Turc." (Russia, Turkey) are listed under the serial number 132 as "Lycaena Zephyrus Friv.". None of these specimens, originating from the FRIVALDSZKY series, could be located in the general Lepidoptera collection of the HNHM, but a single male is preserved in the KOY collection (see Fig. 2). Interestingly, the first author could locate one male syntype in The Natural History Museum, London (BMNH) (BÁLINT 1999: 58).

Plebeius (Kretania) psylorita (FREYER, 1845)

"psyloriti toportyán {Lycaena psylorita Fr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 174: nomen nudum. "LycaenaPap.[ilio] Psylorita" - FREYER 1845,5(79): 146, pi. 469, figs 3-4. "Lycaena Psylorita Friv." - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1846, Papilionides 1(13): 163; 1(14): pi. 69, figs 328-331; 1852, 6(55): 30-31, Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1854, 1(65): Index 20; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 17. "Lycaena Psylorissa [sic!], Frivaldszky" - [DOUBLEDAY] 1847: 50; subse­ quent misspelling. "Lycaena Psylorita. Friv." - GERHARD [1851], (5): 11, pi. 17, fig. 4a, b, c. "Lycaena Psylorita [sic!] H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 309; subsequent mis­ spelling. "Lycaena Psylorita Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 14. "Lycaena Psylorita Freyer" - LEDERER 1852: 20.

FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 174) reported the occurrence of "Lycaena Psylorita Fr." on Crete, but he did not describe or figure it. FREYER (1845, 5(79): 146) de­ scribed the species on two male specimens ("obgleich die zwei Exemplare männlichen Geschlechts sind") found "im Juni auf dem Berge Ida auf der Insel Creta" (Kríti, Óros ídi), that he obtained from FRIVALDSZKY. HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1846, Papilionides 1(13): 163; 1(14): pi. 69, figs 328-331) figured both sexes and redescribed the taxon (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1852, 6(55): 30-31) from an unstated number of specimens from Crete, that he also received from FRIVALDSZKY.

[DOUBLEDAY] (1847: 50) gave the origin of the specimens presented by

FRIVALDSZKY to the BMNH as "Turkey", which is correct as, in the first half of the XlXth century, the island of Crete was still under Ottoman rule. According to

HEYDENREICH (1851: 14) and GERHARD ([1851], (5): 11), the author of the name psylorita was FRIVALDSZKY. KEFERSTEIN (1851: 309) referred to HERRICH-

SCHÄFFER as first author, but it was again LEDERER (1852: 20) who was correct in attributing the name to FREYER.

One syntype of Lycaena Pap.filio] Psylorita FREYER, 1845 has been located in the Museum für Naturkunde der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (MNHUB)

(NEKRUTENKO 2000: 314).

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), seven specimens originating from "Creta" (Crete) are listed under the serial num­ ber 142 as "Lycaena Psylorita Friv.". The first author could locate three (one male, two females) specimens originating from the Frivaldszky collection.

Plebeius (Agriades) dardanus FREYER, 1843

"Lycaena Pap.filio] Dardanus" - FREYER 1843, 5(70): 59, pl. 419, figs 2, 3.

"Lycaena Dardanus" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1844, Papilionides 1(7): pi. 51, figs 240-243; 1845, 1(10): 123; 1(11): 162; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1854, 1(65): Index 8; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 7.

"dárdán toportyán (Lycaena Dardanus Fr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177; nomen nudum.

"Lycaena Dardanus, Friv." - [DOUBLEDAY] 1847: 49.

"Lycaena Dardanus Friv." - GERHARD [1851], (4): 11, pi. 17, fig. 3a, b, c. "Lycaena dardanus. Friw." - BERGE 1851: 155, pl. 33, fig. 7.

"Lycaena dardanus H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 305.

"Lycaena Dardanus Friv." — HEYDENREICH 1851: 14.

"Lycaena Dardanus'Freyer" - LEDERER 1852: 20.

FREYER (1843, 5(70): 59) described this taxon on the basis of an unstated number of male and female specimens from "Die europäische Türkei", sent to him by WEIÍ3ENBORN, who obtained the sample from FRIVALDSZKY. FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 177) reported the occurrence of the species in the vicinity of "Brussa", while HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1845, Papilionides 1(10): 123) stated "Auf den Anhöhen bei Constantinopel und auf dem Berge Olympus bei Brussa im Juni". He received his material from KEFERSTEIN, whose source was also FRIVALDSZKY. [DOUBLEDAY] ( 1847: 49) gave the origin of the specimen sent by FRIVALDSZKY to the BMNH also as "Turkey". Up to LEDERER (1852: 20), who again was the first to attribute the name correctly to FREYER, all the sources but KEFERSTEIN (1851: 305) listed the name under the authorship of FRIVALDSZKY. According to HESSELBARTH et cd. (1995: 622), no extant type material is known. Very recently, BÁLINT (1999: 25) located one male and one female speci­ men orginating from the FREYER collection in the BMNH, designating the male as lectotype and the female as paralectotype, respectively. NEKRUTENKO (1974: 279-280) did not restrict the type locality to "Herze­ gowina", as erroneously stated by HESSELBARTH et cd. (1995: 622), as he only wrote "The illustrated text of its original description agrees fully with characteris­ tics given by HlGGINS & RILEY (1970) of specimens from Cvrstnica Planina in Hercegovina (Yugoslavia), so that the specimens from this locality may be consid­ ered as "true" dardanus". Neither FRIVALDSZKY's collectors nor FRIVALDSZKY himself are known ever to have collected in Hercegovina (REBEL 1904: 132; LELO 2000: 140). The type locality of Lycaena Pap.filio] Dardanus FREYER, 1843 is corrected here as "Turkey, Bursa province, Uludag" (IZCN, Recommendation 76A, see also FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177 and OLIVIER 2000a: 218). In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), six specimens originating from "Turc." (Turkey) are listed under the serial number 193 as "Lycaena Dardanus Friv." only a single male could be located in the HNMH.

Aricia anteros (FREYER, [1838])

"Lycaena Pap.[ilio] Anteros (Treitschke)." - FREYER [1838], 3(45): 101, pl. 265, fig. 1. "L.\ycaena\ Anteros" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1843, Papilionides 1(1): pi. 3, figs 16, 17, pi. 5, figs 26, 27; 1845, 1(10): 124; 1(11): 160; 1852, 6(55): 26, 28, Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1854, 1(65): Index 3; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 2. "nőszded toportyán (Lycaena eroides Fr:)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 172, nomen nudum. "Lycaena Anteros Bd." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 308. "Lycaena Anteros Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 14. "Lycaena EroidesFr'w" - GERHARD [1851], (7): 15, pi. 27, fig. la, b, c. "Lycaena Anteros Freyer" - LEDERER 1852: 20, 35.

The species was described by FREYER ([1838], 3(45): 101) from an unstated number of male specimens, collected by KlNDERMANN on marshy fields in the vi- cinity of Constantinople. He attributed the name to TREITSCHKE. The female was also described by FREYER based on notes by KlNDERMANN, but no specimens were at hand. HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1845, Papilionides 1(10): 124) redescribed the taxon "Vom Balkan", indicating KlNDERMANN as author. Lycaena Anteros BOISDUVAL, 1840, Lycaena Pap.filio] Anteros FREYER, 1842 and Lycaena Anteros GERHARD, [1851] are junior primary homonyms of Lycaena Pap.[ilio] Anteros FREYER, [1838] and junior subjective synonyms of Lycena [sic!] eroides

FRIVALDSZKY, 1835 (cf. FREYER 1846: 367; LEDERER 1852: 36; HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 642, 675; BÁLINT 1999: 13; see also below, under eroides), while Lycaena eroides FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 is a junior primary homonym of Lycena [sic!] eroides FRIVALDSZKY, 1835 and a junior subjective synonym of Lycaena Pap.[ilio] Anteros FREYER, [1838]. Indeed, FRIVALDSZKY (1845) does not mention anteros at all in his paper, while the locality of his "eroides" from the abandoned vicinity of Constantinople (FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 172) can only apply to anteros, as Polyommatus eroides (FRIVALDSZKY, 1835) is a species flying at altitudes be­ tween 1000 and 2000 m, mostly in coniferous and mixed forests (HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 675). KEFERSTEIN (1851: 308) erroneously attributed the authorship of anterosto BOISDUVAL, treating both FREYER's (1838) and HERRICH-SCHÄFFER'S names as synonyms. HEYDENREICH (1851: 14) and GERHARD ([1851], (7): 15) at­ tributed the authorship to FRIVALDSZKY, possibly because he was the supplier of the material they had. Again, LEDERER (1852: 20) was the author, who correctly attributed the authorship of the name to FREYER.

According to HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 642), no extant type material is known.

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), seven specimens without indication of origin are listed under the serial number 138 as "Lycaena Antheros Kind." and six specimens from "Turc." (Turkey) under the serial number 139 as "Lycaena Antheros var. Pupillaris Friv." . The serial number 140 applies to "L. agestis Esp.", which means that the close relationship of the taxa agestis-anteros rather than, say, eroides-anteros, was at last clear for FRIVALDSZKY by the time he compiled the catalogue. None of the specimens could be located in the HNHM. The name "pupillaris" was listed as an anteros subspecies by BRIDGES ( 1994: IX.96), but it was introduced as a male individual variation (AlGNER-ABAFl 1902: 193; see also REBEL 1903: 189), therefore it is unavailable. Aricia hyacinthiis (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, [ 1847])

"jáczint toportyán (Lycaena hyacinthiis Fr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177; nomen nudum. "Lycaena Hyacinthiis, Friv." - [DOUBLEDAY] 1847: 49; nomen nudum. "Lycaena Hyacinthiis' - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1847, Papilionides 1(26): pi. 72, figs 345-348; 1852, 6(55): 29, Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1854, 1(65): Index 12; 1856, 6(69): Index. Macrolep. Univ. 10. "Lycaena Hyacinthiis H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 310. "Lycaena Hyacinthiis Friv." - HEYDENREICH 185 1: 14. "Lycaena Hyacinthus. Friv."-GERHARD [1851], (7): 15, pi. 26, fig. 4a, b, c. "Lycaena Pap.filio] Hyacinthiis' - FREYER 1851, 6(97): 153-154, pi. 577, fig- 2. "Lycaena Hyacinthiis H.-Sch." - LEDERER 1852: 21.

The species was reported to occur in the vicinity of "Brussa" by FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 177), who introduced the name as a nomen nudum. The same qualification applies to the quotation by [DOUBLEDAY] (1847: 49). HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1847, Papilionides 1(26), pi. 72, figs 345-348) figured both sexes and described the species (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1852, 6(55): 29) "Aus der Türkei" from an unstated number of male and female specimens, attributing the authorship of this taxon to FRIVALDSZKY, from whom he apparently obtained his specimens, either directly or indirectly, thus the consideration of HESSELBARTH et al. ( 1995: 635) concerning the type locality of the taxon agrees with FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 177). HEYDENREICH (1851: 14) and GERHARD ([1851], (7): 15) listed the name hyacinthiis under the authorship of FRIVALDSZKY, FREYER (1851, 6(97): 153-154) reporting that he received this species from KlNDERMANN, while KEFERSTEIN (1851: 310) was the first in attributing the authorship correctly to HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, as did subsequently LEDERER (1852: 21).

Aricia hyacinthus (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847) is a species living at altitudes between 1000 and 2000 m, hence the type locality of Lycaena Hyacinthus HERRICH- SCHÄFFER, 1847 is determined here as "Turkey, Bursa province, Uludag" (IZCN, Recommendation 76A, see also FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177 and HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 635). According to HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 635), no extant type material is known (see also NEKRUTENKO 2000: 256). In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864c/), six specimens originating from "Brussa" (Turkey, Bursa) are listed under the serial number 127 as "Lycaena Hyacinthus Friv.". All of these specimens (three males, three females) could be located in the HNHM.

Polyommatus (Cyaniris) semiargus bellis (FREYER, 1842)

"Lycaena Pap.[ilio] Bellis" - FREYER 1842, 5(67): 26, pl. 398, figs 1,2. "Lycaena Bellis" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1844, Papilionides 1(7): pl. 50, figs 232-235; 1845, 1(10): 126; 1(11): 162; 1852, 6(55): 30, Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1854, 1(65): Index 5; 1856, 6(69): 173, Index. Macrolep. Univ. 3. "deli toportyán (Lycaena bellis Fr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 172, nomen nudum. "Lycaena Bellis Friv." - GERHARD [ 1851 ], (4): 9, pl. 14, fig. 1. "Lycaena bellis. Friw." - BERGE 1851: 156, pl. 33, fig. 13. "Lycaena Acis O. Var. Bellis H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 307. "Lycaena Bellis Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 14. "Lycaena Acis V. Bellis Freyer" - LEDERER 1852: 19, 35.

The taxon Lycaena Pap.filio] Bellis FREYER, 1842 was described on the basis of an unstated number of male and female specimens sent to FREYER by WEIßENBORN, "in der Türkey aufgefunden". The source of this material was most probably FRIVALDSZKY (cf. OLIVIER 2000/?: 414), who reported the occurrence of the taxon in the vicinity of Constantinople (FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 172). Conse­ quently, we determine here the type locality of Lycaena Pap.filio] Bellis FREYER, 1842 as "Turkey, istambul province, îstambul" (cf. HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 649, who however considered it to be "in den Raum zwischen istambul und Izmir". By 1842, however, FRIVALDSZKY's collectors had not yet visited Smyrna, vide su­ pra: Introduction). HERRICH-S CHAFFER (1845, 1(10): 126) also described the taxon under the same name from an unstated number of male and female speci­ mens, the authorship of which he attributed to FRIVALDSZKY, hence they certainly had the same origin, as he states "Am Balkan; bei Constantinopel". The material was forwarded to him by KEFERSTEIN. Up to LEDERER (1852: 19), all the sources listed bellis under the authorship of FRIVALDSZKY, except KEFERSTEIN (1851: 307), who mentioned "bellis H. S." as a "Var.fietas]" of acis (which is a junior sub­ jective synonym of semiargus ROTTEMBURG, 1775). LEDERER (1852: 19) was the first in correctly attributing the name to FREYER and further in supporting the taxo­ nomic change introduced by KEFERSTEIN (LEDERER 1852: 35).

According to HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 649), no extant type material is known. Very recently, the first author located one male and one female specimen orginating from the FREYER collection in the BMNH. The male specimen was des- ignated as lectotype and the female specimen as paralectotype, respectively (BÁLINT 1999: 18).

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), nine specimens originating from "Turc." (Turkey) are listed under the serial num­ ber 168 as "Lycaena Bellis Friv.". None of these specimens could be located in the HNHM.

Polyommatus (Polyommatus) eroides (FRIVALDSZKY, 1835)

"Nőszded boglárka. Lycena [sic!] eroides. Frivald." - FRIVALDSZKY 1835: 270, pl. VII, fig. 3.

"Lycaena eroides" - FRIVALDSZKY 1837/?: 91.

"Lycaena Anteros Kinderm." - BOISDUVAL 1840: 11.

"Lycaena Pap.filio] Anteros. (Boisd.)" - FREYER 1842, 5(65): 6-7, pi. 386, figs 3, 4. "Lycaena BoisduvalW - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1843, Papilionides 1(1): pi. 2, figs 7-9; 1844, 1(9): 121; 1845, 1(11): 160; 1852, 6(55): 26, Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1854, 1(65): Index 5; 1856, 6(69): 172, Index. Macrolep. Univ. 4.

"Lycaena Eroides" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1843, Papilionides 1(1): pi. 3, figs 12, 13; 1844, 1(7): 110; 1(9): 121; 1845, 1(11): 160; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1854, 1(65): Index 10; 1856, 6(69): 172, Index. Macrolep. Univ. 8.

"Lycaena Everos, Kinderm." - DUPONCHEL [1844]: 32.

"nőszded boglárka {Lycaena eroides Fr:)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 167. "Lycaena Eroides, Frivaldszky - [DOUBLEDAY] 1847: 49. "Lycaena Eros O. Var. a Eroides H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 309.

"Lycaena Eros O. Var. b Boisduvalii H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 309.

"Lycaena Eros v. Eroides Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 14.

. "Lycaena Everos Kind. (Anteros B. Fr. 386.)." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 14.

"Lycaena Boisduvalii HS." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 14. "Lycaena Anteros Friv."-GERHARD [1851], (7): 15, pi. 26, fig. 5a, b, c.

"Lycaena Boisduvalii H.-Sch." - GERHARD [ 1851 ], (7): 15, pi. 27, fig. 3a, b, c.

"Lycaena BoisduvaliiYL.-Sch." - LEDERER 1852: 20, 36.

"Lycaena Eroides H.-Sch." - LEDERER 1852: 20, 36.

FRIVALDSZKY (1835: 270) described the species from an unstated number of male and female specimens, indicating the type locality as "a Balkány aljasabb mezein" (at the lower foothills of the Balkan Mts). Later he was somewhat more precise, listing the species amongst the material originating from the mountain chain of Rodope ("Despoto, Rodope, Rilo, s Staminák") (FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 166, 167). BOISDUVAL (1840: 11) described "Lycaena Anteros Kinderm." after material from KlNDERMANN, that the latter had sent to him under the name "Everos" (cf. FREYER 1846: 367, who added "Mein Falter auf Tab. 386 muss daher künftig den Namen Everos Kinderm. führen"). The name "Lycaena Everos, Kinderm." had in the meantime become available by DUPONCHEL ([1844]: 32), who gave as type locality "Turquie". FREYER (1842, 5(65): 6-7), before that, had described "Lycaena Pap.filio] Anteros. (Boisd.)" after material sent to him by KlNDERMANN under the name Everos BOISD., that originated from "den Steppen bei Sarepta in Südrußland im Monat Juni", and about which he further commented "Boisduval stellte ihn in seinen Ind. Meth. Nro. 88 als eigene Art unter obigen Namen Anteros und nicht Everos, auf (vide supra, for further erroneus applica­ tions of the name anteros to eroides). HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1843, Papilionides 1(1): pi. 2, figs 7-9) figured both sexes of a species under the name Lycaena Boisduvalii, describing it "Aus dem südlichen Russland" and noted "ein schmutzigeres, bleicheres Blau" (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1844, 1(9): 121), while separately figuring "Lycaena Eroides" (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1843, Papilionides 1(1): pl. 3, figs 12, 13), of which he apparently had only (a) male specimen(s), that he described from "Am südlichen Abhänge des Balkangebirges im Mai", noting "ein reineres, tieferes Blau" (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1844, 1(9): 121). It thus ap­ pears that his boisduvalii and eroides represent different taxa and that both anteros BOISDUVAL, 1840 and anteros FREYER, 1842 are probably representing the same taxon as boisduvalii HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1843, in having the same provider (KlNDERMANN) and the same geographical origin (southern Russia) (cf. FREYER 1842, 5(65): 7; HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1844, 1(9): 121), although the male specimen figured by FREYER ( 1842, 5(65): pi. 386, fig 3) agrees well with eroides, but differs markedly from the boisduvalii male figured by HERRICH-SCHÄFFER. It is thus likely that Lycaena Boisduvalii HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1843 represents a taxon dif­ ferent from Lycena [sic!] eroides FRIVALDSZKY, 1835 (compare CARBONELL

1994: 442-443, 451; Tuzov, ZHDANKO & DANTCHENKO in Tuzov et al. 2000:

191) rather than a mere junior subjective synonym of it (cf. LEDERER 1852: 20, 36; HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 675). A treatment of this subject is beyond the scope of the present contribution, and we have chosen to include all references relevant to the present nomenclatural discussion for convenience (in case of confirmed spe­ cific distinctness, the entries by BOISDUVAL 1840: 11; FREYER 1842, 5(65): 6-7, pl. 386, figs 3, 4 and HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1843, Papilionides 1(1): pi. 2, figs 7-9; 1844, 1(9): 121; 1845, 1(11): 160; 1852, 6(55): 26, Syst. Lep. Eur. 5; 1854, 1(65): Index 5; 1856, 6(69): 172, Index. Macrolep. Univ. 4 have to be omitted). [DOUBLEDAY] (1847: 49) referred to FRIVALDSZKY as source of the material he had. KEFERSTEIN (1851: 309) listed both "eroides H. S." and "boisduvalii' (with "Anteros-Fr." as synonym of the latter name) as "Var.fietas]" of "Lycaena Eros O.", while HEYDENREICH (1851: 14) also listed eroides under FRIVALDSZKY's au­ thorship as variation of eras, but considered both "Everos Kind. (Anteros B. Fr. 386)" and "Boisduvalii HS" as specifically distinct from eroides and from each other! GERHARD ([1851], (7): 15) mistook "AnterosFriv." and "Eroides Friv." for each other, but interestingly considered "Boisduvalii. H. Sch." as a distinct species from both, and gave as country of origin of the last-named taxon "Tiirkei"(!). LEDERER (1852: 36) listed "Lycaena Boisduvalii H.-Sch.", considering "Eroides H.-Sch.", "Anteros Freyer 386." and "Everos B. in lit." as synonyms, a view al­ ready challenged by HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1856, 6(69): 172) himself: "Dass Led. meine Eroides fig. 12 u. 13 so unbedingt mit Boisduvalii vereinigt, möchte erst noch zu beweisen seyn".

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864«), nine specimens originating from "Turc." (Turkey) are listed under the serial num­ ber 139 as "Lycaena Eroides Friv.". Four male specimens and a single female from this series could be located in the HNHM HESSELBARTH et al, (1995: 675) wrote that only one single male has a "Type" label, added at a later date. On the contrary, all five specimens have a handwritten label ("L. Eroides, Frivaldszky, Akad. Evk., II. 1. 1835, Typus!"), most probably in the handwriting of JÁNOS FRIVALDSZKY (cf. figs 10-11). These specimens are determined here as syntypes and have been labelled "Lycena [sic!] eroides Frivaldszky, 1835 I SYNTYPUS I det. Bálint & Olivier, 2001" (on red paper).

According to HESSELBARTH et al, (1995: 675), no extant type material is known for both Lycaena Everos DUPONCHEL, [1844] and Lycaena Pap.filio] Anteros FREYER, [1845] [sic! recte 1842], while for Lycaena Boisduvalii HERRICH- SCHÄFFER, 1843 it is presumably lost (cf. NEKRUTENKO 2000: 220).

HESSELB ARTH et al. (1995: 675) erroneously stated that "Im HNHM befindet sich eine Serie von 4 mm und 1 f aus Slivno in Bulgarien", as the types were col­ lected in the Rhodopi Mts (vide supra). No "Slivno" locality labels are apposed un­ der the specimens considered.

Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) iphigenia (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847)

"iphigenia toportyán (Lycaena Iphigenia Fr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177; nomen nudum. "L.lycaena] Iphigenia" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1847, Papilionides 1(26): pi. 73, fig. 354; 1851, 6(48): 24; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 4; 1854, 1(65): Index 14; 1856, 6(69): Index. Macrolep. Univ. 11. "Lycaena Pap.filio] Jphigenia" - FREYER 1847, 6(86): 51, pi. 512, figs 1,2. "Lacaena [sic!] Iphigenia, Frivaldszky" - [DOUBLEDAY] 1847: 47.

"Lycaena IphigeniaFnv." - GERHARD [1851], (5): 11, pi. 20, fig. 2a, b, c.

"Lycaena Damon O. Var. e Iphigenia H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 305.

"Lycaena Iphigenia Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 13.

"Lycaena Iphigenia H.-Sch" - LEDERER 1852: 21, 38.

FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 177) reported the occurrence of the species in the vicin­ ity of "Brussa" and introduced the name iphigenia as a nomen nudum.

HERRICH-SCHAFFER (1847, Papilionides 1(26): pi. 73, fig. 354) figured only the female, but subsequently described the taxon from an unstated number of male and female specimens "Aus der Türkei", attributing the authorship of its name to

FRIVALDSZKY (HERRICH-SCHAFFER 1851, 6(48): 24). [DOUBLEDAY] (1847: 47) also mentioned only the generalized locality "Turkey" for the specimens FRI­

VALDSZKY sent to the BMNH. On the contrary, FREYER (1847, 6(86): 51) stated "Heimath: Bei Brussa" for his "Lycaena Pap.[ilio] Jphigenia": this suggests that, although no such mention is made, his material also came from FRIVALDSZKY. Ac­ cording to GERHARD ([1851 ], (5): 11 ) and HEYDENREICH ( 1851: 13), the author of iphigenia is FRIVALDSZKY, but KEFERSTEIN (1851: 305) attributed the name to

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, listing iphigenia as a "Var.fietas]" of damon. Strangely he mentioned "Russland" as type locality. LEDERER (1852: 21) also attributed the au­ thorship of iphigenia to HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, and considered it as a distinct spe­ cies (LEDERER 1852: 38).

According to HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 748), the figured female must be considered as lost. While HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1847, 1(26): pi. 73, fig 354) fig­ ured only the female, this does not necessarily imply that this was the only speci­ men of iphigeniahQ possessed by that time. NEKRUTENKO (2000: 262-263) desig­ nated as syntypes two males and two females in the MNHUB.

HESSELBARTH etal. (1995: 748) considered "Uludag bei Bursa" to be the ex­ act type locality of "L.[ycaena\ Iphigenia HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847". We do not agree with HÄUSER & ECKWEILER (1997: 81-82) in questioning the absolute cer­ tainty of this statement. Indeed, while the labels of the syntypes at the MNHUB mention "Constantinop.fel] Friv.[aldszky]": this certainly has to be corrected, as this species is not known from the area of istambul. The more, by 1847

FRIVALDSZKY had material of iphigenia, that had been collected in 1845 on the

Uludag (FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177 - he lists it along with a.o. dardanus and hyacin­ thus, that are oreal species, thus occurring at higher altitudes in the mountains, cf.

OLIVIER 2000a: 218) and it is more than likely that the female figured by

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER came from FRIVALDSZKY. By the time he actually described the species, HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1851, 6(48): 24) may well have obtained addi­ tional material from other sources (e.g. from Amasia, collected by KlNDERMANN in 1848 or 1849). For the sake of clarity, the type locality of L.[ycaena] Iphigenia HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847 is therefore determined here formally as "Turkey, Bursa province, Uludag" (IZCN, Recommendation 76A).

It has not been possible to establish the date of publication of both HER­ RICH-SCHÄFFER ' s L.[ycaena] Iphigenia and FREYER's Lycaena Pap.filio] Jphigenia more precisely than 1847 (OLIVIER 2000£: 432 and OLIVIER in prep.). Therefore, as HERRICH-SCHÄFFER's name enjoys general acceptance among lepi­ dopterists, we consider, for the sake of continuity, Lycaena Pap.filio] Jphigenia FREYER, 1847 as a junior subjective synonym and a junior primary homonym of L. [ycaena] Iphigenia HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847 (cf. ICZN, Art. 58.3). The same synonymy applies to Lacaena [sic!] Iphigenia fDoUBLEDAY], 1847, for which the date of publication is also not known more precisely.

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), nine specimens originating from "Brussa" (= Bursa, Turkey) are listed under the serial number 189 as "Lycaena Iphigenia Friv.". Two male and two female speci­ mens from this series have been located in the HNHM.

Coenonympha thyrsis (FREYER, 1845)

"Thyrsis pilleng (Hipparchia Thyrsis Fr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 174, nomen nudum.

"Hipparchia Pap.filio] Thyrsis" — FREYER 1845,5(80): 157, pl. 475, fig. 1.

"C.[oenonympha] Thyrsis Friv." - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1846, Papilionides 1(13): 163, pi. 62, figs 297-300; 1851, 6(48): 18; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 3; 1855, 1(66): Index 23; 1856, 6(69): Index. Macrolep. Univ. 21.

"Coenonympha Pamphilus O. Var. Lyllus O. A: Thyrsis Fr." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 281.

"Coenonympha Thyrsis Friv." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 11.

"Coenonympha ThyrsisFreyer" — LEDERER 1852: 25.

FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 174) reported the occurrence of "Hipparchia Thyrsis Fr." in Crete and attributed the authorship of the name to himself, though without providing any description or illustration. The same name was used by FREYER (1845, 5(80): 157), who described the species from an unstated number of male and female specimens from Crete he reported to have been collected by

FRIVALDSZKY. The specimens serving as material for HERRICH-SCHÄFFER'S (1846, Papilionides 1(13): 163, pi. 62, figs 297-300) figures and description also originated from Crete ("Insel Candia") via FRIVALDSZKY. HEYDENREICH (1851:

11 ) still attributed the name to FRIVALDSZKY and it was KEFERSTEIN (1851:281) who for the first time mentioned FREYER as author of thyrsis, though considering it only as an aberration of pamphilus LINNAEUS, 1758 ("A" = "Abirrung", cf. KEFER­ STEIN 1851: 223). LEDERER (1852: 25) finally listed this taxon as a distinct species under the authorship of FREYER. In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), nine specimens originating from "Creta" (= Crete) are listed under the serial num­ ber 440 as "Coenonympha Thirsis [sic!] Friv.". Only three specimens (two males and a single female) from this series have been located in the general collection of the HNHM, plus an additional male in the KOY collection.

Erebia ottomana HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847

"E.[rebia] Dramas var. Ottomana" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1847, Papilio­ nides 1(26): pi. 77, fig. 376; 1848, 1(32): pi. 78, figs 379, 380; 1851, 6(48): 8; 1854, 1(65): Index 18; 1856, 6(69): 168, Index. Macrolep. Univ. 15.

"Erebia TyndarusO. A: Ottomanus H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 273. "Hipparchia (Erebia B.) Tyndarus O. v. Aeolus Friv. (Ottomana H. S.)" -

HEYDENREICH 1851: 9, syn. nov. "Erebia Ottomana H.-Sch." (Dromus Var.) (= "Aeolus Friv. in lit.") - LEDERER 1852: 24, 45.

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER ( 1851, Papilionides 6(48): 8) described the species after three males he got from HEYDENREICH and one male he obtained from KEFERSTEIN under the name "Aeolus Friv." (it is not possible to establish from which of both providers the male figured in HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1847, 1(26): pi. 77, fig. 376 originated) and an unstated number of female specimens he was com­ municated by LEDERER, as well as one very large specimen coming from FRI­ VALDSZKY, that he also had depicted (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1848, 1(32): pi. 78, figs 379, 380). He considered it as "Lokal vari etat von Dromus". The taxon was not mentioned at all under any name in FRIVALDSZKY's (1845) report, but "Aeolus" was made available as a v.[arietas] of "Hipparchia (Erebia B.) Tyndarus O." by HEYDENREICH (1851: 9). Hipparchia (Erebia B.) Tyndarus O. v. Aeolus HEYDEN­ REICH, 1851 is thus a junior subjective synonym of E. [rebia] Dromus var. Ottoma­ na HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847, syn. nov. KEFERSTEIN (1851: 273) listed ottoma­ nus as an aberration of "Erebia Tyndarus O.", while it was LEDERER ( 1852: 45) who established distinct species status for the nominal taxon ottomana. About the type locality, HESSELBARTH et al. (1995: 857) state: "Locus typi- cus: nicht angegeben; nach LEDERER ([1853]: 45) "Olymp bei Brussa" (Uludag bei Bursa) It is not established that SCHWERZENBACH, who collected LEDE- RER's (1852: 45) specimens "auf dem Olymp bei Brussa", collected for FRI­ VALDSZKY, and it is indeed likely that this was not the case (cf. STAUDINGER 1878: 182). As it appears that MANN did not find it near "Brussa" (STAUDINGER 1878: 274), it is thus hardly possible that the material that served for HERRICH-SCHAF- FER's description of ottomana came from another source than FRIVALDSZKY's collectors. We therefore agree with the statement by H ES S ELB ARTH et al. (1995: 857) about its origin and, as a result, for the sake of clarity, the type locality of E.[rebia] Dromus var. Ottomana HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847 is determined here as "Turkey, Bursa province, Uludag" (IZCN, Recommendation 76A; cf. VARGA 1977: 5).

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), nine specimens are listed as ottomana without any locality label under the serial number 355 as "Erebia Dromus var. ottomana". Three male and three female spec­ imens from this series could be located in the general collection of the HNHM. One of the males was designated as "Lectoholotypus" (= Lecotype) by VARGA (1977: 5) and one male and two female specimens were similarly designated as "Lectoparatypoid" (= Paralectotype), though the following statement by that au­ thor "Weil die Original-Exemplare von Herrich-Schäffer, die in Wien aufbewahrt wurden, im Jahre 1848 verbrannt wurden" automatically invalidates this type des­ ignation (cf. ICZN, Art. 74.2, see also Art. 72.4.1, 72.4.7). The additional male and female specimens apparently were overlooked by VARGA.

Erebia alberganusphorcys(FREYER, [1836])

"Hipparchia ?ap.[\\io] Phorcys" - FREYER [1836], 3(33): 4, pl. 193, fig. 2. "Erebia Ceto H. = Phorcys, Fr." - BOISDUVAL 1840: 27. "Erebia Ceto O. Var. Phorcys Freyer" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1844, Papilio­ nides 1(3): 51; 1(4): 64; 1854, 1(65): Index 19.

"Erebia Ceto O. [=] Phorcys Fr." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 273. "Hipparchia (Erebia B.) Ceto v. Phorcys Friv." - ITEYDENREICH 1851: 9. "Erebia Ceto Hb. V. Phorcys Freyer" - LEDERER 1852: 23, 44.

FREYER'S ([ 1836], 3(33): 4) description of this taxon was based on two speci­ mens he obtained from FRIVALDSZKY, that were found "in der europäischen Türkei" (present-day Bulgaria; vide supra, Introduction. The taxon appears to be restricted to the central Stara Planina, cf. WARREN 1936: 223; ABADJIEV 1993: 53). He con­ sidered it to be closely related to, but specifically distinct from "Pap. Ceto". Al­ ready BOISDUVAL (1840: 27) listed phorcys as a synonym of ceto, and this is per­ haps the reason why the taxon was not mentioned at all in FRIVALDSZKY's (1845) report. HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1844, Papilionides 1(4): 64) listed the taxon as

Var.[ietas] of Erebia Ceto O. KEFERSTEIN (1851: 273) considered phorcys as a synonym of ceto and so did HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1854, 1(65): Index 19: "(phor­ cys) Fr. v. ceto"). HEYDENREICH (1851: 9) attributed the authorship of phorcys to

FRIVALDSZKY. LEDERER (1852: 23, 44) correctly attributed the authorship of "V.

Phorcys" to FREYER and mentioned its differentiating characters as compared to nominotypical ceto ("blassgelbe statt rostfarbe Splitterflecken auf der Unterseite der Hinterflügel"). For the sake of clarity, the type locality of Hipparchia Pap.filio] Phorcys

FREYER, [1836] is determined here as "Bulgaria, central Stara Planina" (IZCN, Recommendation 76A).

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), three specimens originating from "Turc." (Turkey) are listed under the serial num­ ber 367 as "Erebia ceto v. Bubastis Fr.". These (two males, one female) have been located in the general collection of the HNHM.

The taxonomic status of phorcys was not convincingly clarified by WARREN

(1936: 223), who had no material at hand. Later, VARGA & SLIVOV (1977: 171) listed the taxon as an endemic Balkan subspecies of Erebia alberganus (DE PRUN­

NER, 1798): this view was also shared by ABADJIEV (1993: 53).

Hipparchia fatua (FREYER, 1843)

"Hipparchia Pap.filio] Fatua" - FREYER 1843, 5(70): 54, pl. 415, figs 3, 4.

"Satyrus Statilinus Var. Fatua Freyer" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1844, Papilio­ nides 1(4): 77; 1(6): pi. 42, figs 192, 193; 1845, 1(11): 162; 1851,6(48): 15; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 3; 1854, 1(65): Index 11.

"együgyű pilleng (Hipparchia fatua Friv.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177, nomen nudum.

"Satyrus Allionia O. Var. a Fatua Fr." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 277.

"Satyrus Allionia Cyr. v. Fatua Fr." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 10.

"Satyrus Statilinus Hufnagel V. Fatua Freyer" - LEDERER 1852: 25, 47-48.

FREYER (1843, 5(70): 54) did not mention the source of his material of Hipparchia Pap.filio] Fatua, but in the same instalment he describes a.o. Hipparchia Pap.filio] Beroe and Lycaena Pap.filio] Dardanus, two taxa of which the material is known, albeit from circumstancial evidence (vide supra: dardanus;

OLIVIER 2000a: 218) to have been collected on the Uludag near Bursa, while

FRIVALDSZKY (1845: 177) lists beroe, fatua, dardanus, iphigenia, hyacinthus, gruneri and phlomidis from near "Brussa". It is therefore quite probable that this is the type locality of Hipparchia fatua FREYER, 1843. We fully agree with HESSELBARTH et al.'s (1995: 913) statement about the apparently erroneous type locality designation for this taxon by KUDRNA (1977: 132). HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1844, Papilionides 1(4): 77) only stated "aus der Türkei" as its area of origin. KEFERSTEIN (1851: 277), HEYDENREICH (1851: 10) and LEDERER (1852: 25) listed the taxon under the authorship of FREYER, the former two workers consider- ingfatua as a var.fietas] of "Allionia" (= statilinus), LEDERER (1852: 46) treating it as a "Var.fietas]" of statilinus. STAUDINGER (1871: 29) finally treated it as a dis­ tinct species again. For the sake of clarity, the type locality of Hipparchia Pap.filio] Fatua FREYER, 1843 is determined here as "Turkey, Bursa province, env. Bursa" (IZCN, Recommendation 76A). As H. fatua is more of a lowland species, it has not neces­ sarily been collected on the slopes of the Uludag. One male specimen, originating from the FREYER collection, was located by KUDRNA (1977: 131) in the BMNH and designated as lectotype. Another male, collected by KlNDERMANN in 1837 near "Constantinopel", still exists in the NHMW. It is impossible to establish, on present evidence, if FREYER saw this specimen when he described fatua. In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), four specimens from "Brussa" (Turkey, Bursa) are listed under the serial number 405 as "Satyrus Martinii H.-Sch. V. Fatua F.". All these specimens (one male, three females) have been located in the HNHM.

Pseudochazara beroe (FREYER, 1843)

"Hipparchia Pap.filio] Beroe" - FREYER 1843, 5(70): 53, pl. 415, figs 1,2. "Satyrus Beroë Friv." - HERRICH-S CHAFFER 1844, Papilionides 1(4): 74; 1(5): pi. 23, figs 108-111; 1845, 1(11): 161; 1851,6(48): 13, 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 3; 1854, 1(65): Index 5; 1856, 6(69): Index. Macrolep. Univ. 3. "Beroe pilleng (HipparchiaBeroe Friv.)" — FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 177, nomen nudum. "Hipparchia Beroë" - fDoUBLEDAY] 1848: 32. "Satyrus Beroë H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 276. "Satryus Beroë Friv." -HEYDENREICH 1851: 10. "Satyrus Beroë Freyer" - LEDERER 1852: 25, 47.

FREYER (1843, 5(70): 53) described "Hipparchia Pap.filio] Beroe" after ma­ terial that was sent to him by WEIßENBORN. No area of origin nor authorship were mentioned. It appears, however, that the specimens were collected on the Uludag near Bursa, most probably by KlNDERMANN (cf. OLIVIER 2000«: 218). HERRICH-

SCHÄFFER (1844, Papilionides 1(4): 74) described the taxon under the authorship of FRIVALDSZKY, stating "Auf den Anhöhen von Constantinopel selten und auf dem Olymp bei Brussa öfter". FRIVALDSZKY ( 1845: 177) reported the occurrence of the species near "Brussa", indicating himself as author. [DOUBLEDAY] (1848:

32) indicated the origin of the specimens sent by FRIVALDSZKY to the BMNH as "Crete" (lapsus calamini: the occurrence of this taxon on Crete has never been con­ firmed again, thus most probably DOUBLEDAY misinterpreted FRIVALDSZKY's data somehow). KEFERSTEIN (1851: 276) attributed the authorship of beroe to

HERRICH-SCHAFFER, while HEYDENREICH ( 1851: 10) is designating FRIVALDSZKY as such. LEDERER (1852: 25) is the first author who correctly points out that

FREYER was the first who validly described this taxon. He further makes the fol­ lowing interesting statement: "Auf den Anhöhen bei Constantinopel kommt Beroë gewiss auch nicht vor; es ist diese Angabe eine Händlerfinte, um die Art als europäisch verkaufen zu können". If such was indeed common practice with some dealers, this could also explain the otherwise inexplicable mentions by their au­ thors of "Constantinopel" or "europäischen Türkei" as the area of origin in the case of Chilades trochylus (FREYER, [1844]), Plebeius (Agriades) dardanus (FREYER,

1843) and Euphydryas orientális (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1845). It is worthy to re­ port here anecdotically that FREYER ([ 1838], 3(45): 102) stated under "Hipparchia Pap.| ilio] Antheleä": "Herr Kindermann fand ihn auf den felsigen Gestaden der Prinzeninseln bei Konstantinopel". Obviously this material came from the vicinity of Bursa, as this taxon is not known from Istambul, on either side of the Bosphorus.

The same applies to Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) iphigenia (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER,

1847), the syntypes of which are also labelled "Constantinopel" (cf. NEKRUTENKO 2000: 262).

Figs 12-13. Hipparchia Amalthea FRIVALDSZKY, 1845. 12 = lecotype upperside, 13 = labels According to HESSELBARTH et al, (1995: 943), no type material of beroe

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1844 is known and the depository of the figured specimens is unknown. Also for beroe FREYER, 1843, no extant syntypes seem to exist

(OLIVIER 2000A: 218).

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864«), six specimens from "Turcia" (Turkey) are listed under the serial number 388 as "Satyrus Beroe Friv.". Three specimens (two males, one female) could be located in the HNHM.

Pseudochazara anthelea amalthea (FRIVALDSZKY, 1845)

"Amalthea pilleng {Hipparchia Amalthea Fr.)" - FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 174, 186-187, pi. 3, figs 3-4. "HipparchiaVap.[i\io] Pontica" — FREYER 1845, 5(80): 158, pl. 475, figs 2, 3.

"Satyrus Anthelea foem." - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1846, Papilionides 1(13): 163, pi. 63, figs 303, 304; 1851, 6(48): 15; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. 3; 1854, 1(65): Index 2, 3, 20; 1856, 6(69): 169, Index. Macrolep. Univ. 17. "Satyrus Pontica Fr. [= Anthelea f H. S. = Amalthea Eversm. in litt.l" -

KEFERSTEIN 1851: 276, 277.

"Satyrus Anthelea, H." [pro parte] - HEYDENREICH 1851: 10. "Satyrus Anthelea v. Pontica Friv. Fr. 475. (Amalthea Friv. i. /.)" -

HEYDENREICH 1851: 10.

"Satyrus Pontica Freyer." (= "Anthelea V. Amalthea H.-Sch.") - LEDERER 1852: 25,47.

FRTVALDSZKY (1845: 186-187) described Hipparchia Amalthea from an un­ stated number of male and female specimens from Crete, giving the type locality as "az Ida és a Sphakia hegység ormain" (on the rocky swards of Oros Idi and Lefká Ori; [just below the summit of Oros Idi lies Idéo Andro where, according to the Greek mythology, the goat Amalthea had been the nurse of the child Zeus]) (Fig. 4).

He compared the female to nominotypical anthelea HÜBNER, [1824], pointing to the close resemblance of the males, but the quite big difference in colour of the fe­ males of both taxa. He apparently also had comparative material of the latter taxon

("Anthelea pilleng") from Izmir ("Smyrna", cf. FRIVALDSZKY 1845: 176). FREYER (1845, 5(80): 158) described the taxon under the name Hipparchia Pap.[ilio]

Pontica, referring to FRIVALDSZKY as author and source of his material, that was collected "auf den weißen Bergen der Insel Creta in Juny" (Levká Ori). HERRICH-

SCHÄFFER (1846, Papilionides 1(13): 163, pi. 63, figs 303, 304) commented his figures as follows: "Von Hrn. Dr. Frivaldszky als S. Pontica, vom Skafiotischen [sic! recte Sfakiotischen] Gebirge auf der Insel Candia..." (Crete, Lefká Óri), fur­ ther emphasizing that the male shows no significant differences when compared to anthelea. Later, HERRICH-SCHÄFFER ( 1851, 6(48): 15) added that the male, which he received again from FRIVALDSZKY, this time under the name Amalthea, in no way differs from the male "wie sie auch Hübner fig. 861. 862 abbildet" and con­ cluded from this, that this new name could not be maintained (this is the only in­ stance we know of, where FRIVALDSZKY used successively two different manu­ script names to denote the same taxon). He considered the female of nominotypical anthelea he previously figured (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1844, 1(5): pi. 39, figs 178, 179) as belonging to "Satyrus Thelephassa (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1845, 1(11): 162; 1851, 6(48): 14), of which he also figured the male (HERRICFI-SCHÄFFER (1846, 1(13): 163, pi. 63, figs 305, 306) on the same plate as the white anthelea fe­ male [recte amalthea] (compare KEFERSTEIN 1851: 277!). His problems with the correct attribution of the nominotypical anthelea females he had figured were re­ flected in his comments about anthelea, related to these figures (HERRICH-SCHÄF- FER ( 1844, 1 (4): 76). KEFERSTEIN ( 1851: 276, 277) listed "Satyrus Pontica Fr." as a distinct species when compared to "Satyrus Anthelea Bd." and quoted "Amalthea Eversm. in litt." as a synonym of the former name, as he did with "Anthelea f H. S. tab. 63. f. 303. 304." In a separate notice, he stated however "Nach meiner Ansicht dürfte das m beider Schmetterlinge zu den f von Pontica, und das f von Anthelea zu Telephassa [sic] gehören". HEYDENREICH (1851: 10) listed both "Thelephassa H." and "Pontica Friv. Fr. 475. {Amalthea Friv. i. /.)" as v.[arietas] of "Satyrus Anthelea H.". LEDERER (1852: 25) listed "Pontica Freyer" as a distinct species (with Amalthea as a synonym) and, in his separate comments, listed a series of dif­ ferentiating characters between "Anthelea' and "Ponticd\ Finally, HERRICH- SCHÄFFER (1856, 6(69): 169) reluctantly accepted LEDERER's conclusions.

While no precise dating could be established for FREYER (1845, 5(80): 158, pl. 475, figs 2, 3, cf. OLIVIER 2000è: 431) and hence the publication date of his Hipparchia Pap.filio] Pontica is to be considered as 31.XII. 1845 (cf. ICZN, Art. 21.3.2), it also appears that no more precise information than "1845" is available for Hipparchia Amalthea FRIVALDSZKY, 1845. Therefore, as FRIVALDSZKY's name enjoys general acceptance among present-day lepidopterists, we consider, for the sake of continuity, Hipparchia Pap.[ilio] Pontica FREYER, 1845 as a junior subjective synonym of Hipparchia Amalthea FRIVALDSZKY, 1845.

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864«), nine specimens from "Ins. Candia" (= Crete) are listed under the serial number 400 as "Satyrus Amalthea Friv.". Four specimens (two males, two females) are depos­ ited in the HNHM. VAN OORSCHOT et al. (1987: 94) designated one male as lectotype of amalthea (Figs 12-13) and the remaining specimens were similarly designated as paralectotypes. No extant type material of Hipparchia Pap.filio] Pontica FREYER, 1845 is known.

Euphydryas orientális (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, [1845])

"Melitaea orientális" - HERRICH-SCHAFFER 1845, Papilionides 1 ( 10): pi. 56, figs 265, 266; 1846, 1(13): 163; 1851, 6(48): [11-2; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. [1]; 1854, 1(65): Index 18; 1856, 6(69): Index. Macrolep. Univ. 15. "MelitaeaPap.[ilio] Artemis" — FREYER 1851,6(96): 143-144, pl. 571, fig. 1.

"Melitaea Artemis O. A: Orientális H. S." - KEFERSTEIN 1851: 242. "Melitaea OrientalisWw." - HEYDENREICH 1851: 5. "Melitaea Artemis S. V. V. Orientális H.-Sch." (= "Coelia Friv. in lit.") - LEDERER 1852: 21,40.

HERRICH-SCHÄFFER ( 1846, Papilionides 1(13): 163), commenting on the fig­ ures he published one year before of a male specimen, stated: "Von Constantinopel; von Hrn. Frivaldszky als Var. von Artemis aber gewiss eigene Art". Later he made a detailed description of this taxon, mentioning "als Coelia v. Friv. beide Geschlechter" and further "von Herr Lederer aus Amasia; Herr Dr Frivaldszky gibt Constantinopel als Heimath an" (HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1851, 6(48): [l]-2). FREYER (1851, 6(96): 143-144, pl. 571, fig. 1) described but did not name an "Abart" (form) of "Melitaea Pap.filio] Artemis", of which he obtained material from near Amasia, collected by KlNDERMANN. KEFERSTEIN (1851: 242) correctly attributed the authorship of orientális to HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, but he considered it only as an aberration of "Artemis", while HEYDENREICH (1851: 5) treated it as a distinct species under the authorship of FRIVALDSZKY. LEDERER (1852: 21, 40) treated it as a "V.farietas]" of "Melitaea Artemis" (also listing FRIVALDSZKY's name as a synonym). HESSELB ARTH et al. (1995: 1017) wrote "Locus typicus: Amasya, nach HERRICH-SCHÄFFER [1851]". This is incorrect, as HERRICH-SCHÄFFER figured his male specimen already in 1845, while it is known that KlNDERMANN was the first to collect in Amasia, where he went for the first time only in 1848 (cf. [LEDERER] I860: 252-253). The mention "Constantinopel" by HERRICH-SCHÄFFER ( 1846, 1(13): 163) is certainly mistaken, as this species is not known to occur at all near istambul, on either side of the Bosphorus (cf. ITESSELBARTII et al. 1995: 1019). Such erroneous reports have already been dealt with in some detail in the present paper (vide supra). The collector(s) of HERRlCH-SCHÄFFER's 1845 mate- rial can only be either KlNDERMANN (1836 and 1837) or ZACH and JÁNOS

FRIVALDSZKY (1845), who all collected extensively near Brussa, while material of Euphydryas orientális, all of which is currently deposited in the BMNH, is indeed known to have been collected near Bursa. We therefore correct here the type local­ ity of Melitaea orientális HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1845 as "Turkey, Bursa province, env. Bursa" (IZCN, Recommendation 76A).

According to HESSELBARTM et al. (1995: 1017), no extant type material is known.

In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), nine specimens from "Turc." (Turkey) are listed under the serial number 223 as "Melitaea coelia Friv". Only one single female specimen from this series could be located in the HNHM.

Melitaea arduinna (ESPER, [1783])

"Melitaea?ap.[ilio] Rhodopensis"-FKEYER [1836], 3(33): 3, pi. 193, fig. 1; [1839], 3(48): 133.

"Melitaea Pap.[ilio] Arduinna" - FREYER [ 18391, 3(47): 117, pl. 277, fig. 1.

"Melitaea Rhodopensis, Frivaldski [sic]" - BOISDUVAL 1840: 20.

"[Melitaea] Arduinna" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1843, Papilionides 1(2): 19, 25; 1846, 1(13): 163, 1(14): pi. 67, figs 319-321; 1851, 6(48): 3; 1852, 6(55): Syst. Lep. Eur. [1]; 1854, 1(65): Index 3; 1856, 6(69): Index Macrolep. Univ. 2.

"Melitaea Rhodopensis" - HERRICH-SCHÄFFER 1843, Papilionides 1(1): pi. 1, figs 5, 6, 1(2): 19, 25; 1845, 1(1 1): 160; 1851, 6(48): 3; 1854, 1(65): Index 3; 1855, 1(66): Index 21. "Melitaea rhodopensis Fr." - BERGE 1851: 167, pl. 37, fig. 11. "Melitaea ArduinnaEsp. Var. Rhodopensis Bd." - KEFERSTEIN 185 1: 243.

"Melitaea Rhodopensis H " - HEYDENREICH 1851: 5.

"Melitaea Arduinna Esp. (= Rhodopensis H.-Sch.)" - LEDERER 1 852: 22, 40.

"Melitaea ArduinnaW. Rhodopensis Freyer" - LEDERER 1852: 22, 40.

FREYER ([1836], 3(33): 3, pl. 193, lïg. 1) described Melitaea Pap.filio] Rhodopensis from an unstated number of "in der europaeischen Türkei durch Hrn. Dr. Frivaldszky in Pest aufgefundener und neu entdeckter Falter", figuring one

single male. A couple of years later, FREYER ([1839], 3(47): 117, pl. 277, fig. 1) listed and figured Melitaea Pap.filio] Arduinna and concluded that his rhodopensis is a synonym of arduinna (see also FREYER [ 1839], 3(48): 133). BOISDUVAL

(1840: 20) redescribed rhodopensis, indicating FRIVALDSZKY as author and "Turcia" as area of origin. He further listed "Melitaea Arduina [sic!], Esp." as a distinct species from "Russ. mer.". HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1843, Papilionides 1(1): pl. 1, figs 5, 6) figured the female upperside and underside, also under the name Rhodopensis and subsequently, commenting on ESPER's and FREYER' s plates, considered arduinna to be "Eine Lokalvarietät von Rhodopensis'' (HERRICH- SCHÄFFER 1843, 1(2): 19; see also p. 25, in which he describes both nominal taxa in detail, giving "Südrussland" as area of origin of arduinna and noting about "Rhodopensis": "Hübner's figg. 1023. u. 1024. sind Copien der schlechten Freyer'sehen Abbildungen des Mannes", cf. HEMMING 1931: 496). Commenting on his earlier illustration of rhodopensis, HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1845, 1(11): 160) specifies "vom Balkan", and about "Melitaea Arduinna Boeb. Mas." he quotes "Von Hrn. von Weissenborn; aus Südrussland". HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1851, 6 (48): 3) considers arduinna as the valid name, being the oldest one, but maintains its synonym rhodopensis to denote it as "Var.fietas]". BERGE (1851: 167, pl. 37, fig. 11) describes and illustrates rhodopensis as a distinct species under the author­ ship of FREYER, while KEFERSTEIN (1851: 243) treats "Rhodopensis" as a "Var.fietas]" of "Melitaea Arduinna Esp.", but attributing the authorship of the former name to BOISDUVAL. He further considers all material dealt with under both arduinna and rhodopensis by both FREYER and HERRICH-SCHÄFFER as refer­ able to rhodopensis. HEYDENREICH (185 1: 5) lists "Rhodopensis U.[übncr - sic!]" (with "Rhena Fuchs." as synonym) and separately, as a v.farietas], "Arduinna Esp.". Finally, LEDERER (1852: 22, 40) considers "Rhodopensis Freyer" as a dis­ tinct "V.farietas]" of "Arduinna Esp.", but considers HERRICH-SCHÄFFER's (1843) figs 5, 6 to refer to nominotypical arduinna.

The nominal taxon Melitaea rhodopensis was not mentioned by FRIVALDSZKY (1845). In the catalogue of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), two specimens from "Turc." (Turkey) are listed under the serial number 233 as "Melitaea Rhodopensis Friv."'. Four specimens are also listed from "Turc." (Turkey) under the serial number 232 as "Melitaea Arduinna Esp.". Only a single female specimen of "Rhodopensis" could be located in the HNHM. In the BMNH, there is one male syntype of Melitaea Pap.filio] Rhodopensis FREYER, [1836] (HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 1035, cf. HIGGINS 1941: 276; it is impossible to find out if this is the holotype by monotypy; vide supra). The type locality of this taxon was stated to be "der europaeischen Türkei" by FREYER ([1836], 3(33): 3) and "vom Balkan" by HERRICH-SCHÄFFER (1845, 1(11): 160). HESSELBARTH et al, (1995: 1035) corrected the type locality as "...[Bulgarien]", which is more than probable, further considering that FREYER figures both "Phorcys" and "CerisyiF on the same plate, the specimens of both nominal taxa (certainly the former one) originating from present-day Bulgaria (cf. OLIVIER 20006: 413), while there are no known records of Melitaea arduinna (ESPER, [1793]) from the Bosphorus area, the Fig. 14. Extract from the catalogus of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), opening page of "Lcpidoptcra Europaea" Fig. 15. Extract from the catalogus of the Frivaldszky Insect Collection (FRIVALDSZKY 1864a), page 4 of "Lcpidoptcra Europaea" vicinity of Bursa or the Aegean coast of Turkey (HESSELBARTH et al. 1995: 1036-1037, Map 320).

Melitaea Pap.[ilio] Rhodopensis FREYER, [1836] is a junior subjective syn­ onym of Papilio N. Phaler. Arduinna ESPER, [1783] (HESSELBARTH et al 1995: 1035).

DISCUSSION

FRIVALDSZKY distributed material to his colleagues and to certain German dealers, consistently applying the same manuscript names for single taxa (with the notable exception of pontica and amalthea), as did other collectors and dealers of his day like, for instance, KlNDERMANN. As a result, several taxa were described almost simultaneously, mostly by FREYER and HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, under the same name. Many of these manuscript names appeared as nomina nuda in his pa­ per published in 1845 (vide supra). In only three out of the forementioned cases (Anthocharis gruneri, Chilades trochylus, Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) iphigenia), it appears impossible to deter­ mine the priority of some names published either by FREYER and HERRICH- SCHÄFFER, as no precise data could be obtained about publication dates (cf. OLIVIER 20006 and in prep). As far as FRIVALDSZKY's (1845) paper is concerned, a similar problem only applies to the case of Pseudochazara anthelea amalthea (vide supra).

In the first guide of European butterflies published for a wider public, BERGE (1851) simply followed the concept of HERRICH-SCHAFFER'S text and figures.

HEYDENREICH, who is known to have been on friendly terms with FRI­ VALDSZKY (cf. OLIVIER 1999: 129), published his catalogue mainly for mercantile reasons, introducing a lot of names in litteris, that were communicated to him along with material obtained not only from FRIVALDSZKY, but also from KlNDER­ MANN and EVERSMANN. This caused LEDERER (1852: 14) to express critical com­ ments relating to this work. Nevertheless, HEYDENREICH's catalogue was used very much by FRIVALDSZKY, as personal annotations written on his own copy tes­ tify, thus containing the seeds of FRIVALDSZKY's first attempt to name systemati­ cally butterflies and moths in Hungarian, eventually materializing in his magnus opus (FRIVALDSZKY 1865).

GERHARD ([1850J-1853) referred to FRIVALDSZKY as author of several lycae­ nid taxa, quoting on several occasions that he received material originating from the latter via HEYDENREICH (cf. OLIVIER 1999: 129). Studying the FRIVALDSZKY bequest, the first author found evidence that FRIVALDSZKY and GERHARD were corresponding at least in 1853 and 1854/

FREYER and HERRICH-SCHÄFFER followed the tradition of their day in attrib­ uting as a rule the authorship to the provider of their material, using his manuscript names as well. This tradition was still followed by HEYDENREICH and GERHARD, but not anymore by KEFERSTEIN and especially by LEDERER who, when compiling his systematic list, strictly based the authorship of the taxa on objective published references applied to the names.

KEFERSTEIN, as well as FRIVALDSZKY, was also fellow of the "Entomolo­ gische Verein" in Stettin, that was to publish his paper in several parts in the Ento­ mologische Zeitung Stettin. While he was compiling his system, KEFERSTEIN started to build up an extensive reference collection. He received support from var­ ious colleagues, but apparently FRIVALDSZKY was not mentioned amongst them and none of his publications were referred to at all (KEFERSTEIN 1851: 223-224). Most probably they came into contact only after 1851, as FRIVALDSZKY's extant manuscript notes do not suggest that they were corresponding before 1853.

LEDERER both purchased and sold specimens, one of his suppliers being FRIVALDSZKY himself or in certain cases the ANKER brothers. This is substanti­ ated not only by LEDERER's remarks in his catalogue, but also by FRIVALDSZKY's notes, recently found in his bequest by the first author. It is conceivable that LEDERER (or the ANKER brothers) were the source of the specimens, presumably purchased via KlNDERMANN and housed nowadays in the FRIVALDSZKY collec­ tion (eg. "Lycaena Zephyrus" and "Thecla frivaldszkyV, both from Russia).

The FRIVALDSZKY collection is a gold mine from a lepidopterological point of view. It contains not only the type material of taxa described by FRIVALDSZKY himself (Polyommatus eroides, Pseudochazara anthelea amalthea), but also mate­ rial of various species from the Balkan Peninsula and from western Anatolia, caught by collectors he sent there and that, though not syntypes of nominal taxa de­ scribed by FREYER and HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, may be most appropriate for the des­ ignation of neotypes by future revisers in absence of any known extant type mate­ rial. The value of this collection is further enhanced in that there is a good Cata­ logue of it (Figs 14-15) and that it has remained in the possession of a single Insti­ tute (HNHM). On the contrary, the collections of all his correspondents have either been destroyed (e.g. GERHARD, cf. OLIVIER 1999: 129-130) or dispersed over var­ ious European private and public collections (e.g. FREYER: CF. BÁLINT 1999, OLIVIER 20006: 410, NEKRUTENKO 2000; HERRICH-SCHÄFFER: CF. NEKRUTENKO 2000) and no comprehensive surveys remain at present about their exact content and size.

* No records of correspondence remain for the years before 1853. The Frivaldszky Collection demonstrates well how intense contacts and ex­ changes were established between the early XlXth century lepidopterists and how fast information as well as material could be shared by various colleagues with a common interest.

SYNOPSIS

New synonym

E.[rebia] Dromus var. Ottomana HERRICH-SCHAFFER, 1847 = Hipparchia (Erebia B.) tyndarus O. v. Aeolus HEYDENREICH, 1851, syn. n.

Nomina nuda

Anthocaris [sic!] gruneri FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Hesperia phlomidis FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Hipparchia beroe FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Hipparchia fatua FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Hipparchia thyrsis FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Lycaena bellis FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Lycaena dardanus FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Lycaena eroides FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Pontia gruneri [DOUBLEDAY |, 1848 Lycaena hesperica zephyrus BOISDUVAL, 1840 Lycaena hyacinthus FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Lycaena hyacinthus [DOUBLEDAY] 1847 Lycaena iphigenia FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Lycaena psittacus FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Lycaena psylorita FRIVALDSZKY, 1845 Lycaena trochylus FRIVALDSZKY, 1845

Subsequent misspellings

Lycaena balcanica KEFERSTEIN, 1851 Lycaena cephirus FRIVALDSZKY, 1837 Lycaena psilorissa [DOUBLEDAY], 1848 Lycaena psylorita KEFERSTEIN, 1 851 Syntype designations

Chilades trochylus var. grisea AlGNER-ABAFl, 1906: one male Lycaena eroides FRIVALDSZKY, 1835: four males, one female

Type locality determinations and corrections

"Turkey, Bursa province, Bursa" instead of "Insel Kreta" and of "Amasia" for Anthocharis gruneri HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1851 "Turkey, Bursa province, Uludag" instead of "Die europäische Türkei" and of "Herzegowina" for Lycaena Pap.[ilio] Dardanus FREYER, 1843 "Turkey, Bursa province, Uludag" instead of "Türkei" for Lycaena Hyacinthus HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847 "Turkey, Istambul province, Istambul" instead of "Türkey" and of "in den Raum zwischen Istambul und Izmir" for Lycaena Pap.filio] Bellis FREYER, 1842 "Turkey, Bursa province, Uludag" instead of "Türkei" for L.[ycaena] Iphigenia HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847 "Turkey, Bursa province, Uludag" for E.[rehia] Dromus var. Ottomana HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1847 "Bulgaria, central Stara Planina" instead of "in der europäischen Türkei" for Hipparchia Pap.filio] Phorcys FREYER, [1836] "Turkey, Bursa province, env. Bursa" instead of "W. Turkey: Prov. Kütahya: Gediz" and of "Marmaragebiet (Istambul, Bursa, Tekirdag)" for Hipparchia Pap.filio] Fatua FREYER, 1843 "Turkey, Bursa province, env. Bursa" instead of "Constantinopel" and of "Amasia" for Melitaea orientális HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, 1845

* * *

Acknowledgements-The authors wish to thank Dr. YURI P. NEKRUTENKO (Schmalhausen In­ stitute of Zoology, Kiev), Mr. JOHN G. COUTSIS (Athens) and Mr. MATTHIAS NUß (Staatliches Mu­ seum für Tierkunde, Dresden) for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of the present manuscript.

REFERENCES

ABADJIEV, S. (1992): Butterflies of Bulgaria. Part I. Papilionidae & Pieridae. - Vercn Publishers, Sofia, 91 pp. ABADJIEV, S. (1993): Butterflies of Bulgaria. Part 2. Nymphalidae: Libytheinae & Satyrinae. - Veren Publishers, Sofia, 126 pp, 13 + 9 text figs, 24 + 16 maps, 16 pis (with 107 col. figs). AIGNER-ABAFI, L. [V.] ("Abafi-Aigner") (1897): Frivaldszky Imre. - Rovartani Lapok 4: 5-9, 1 Taf. [in Hungarian]. AIGNER-ABAFI, L. [V.] ("A. Aigner Lajos") (1902): Különfélék - Lycaena Eros var. eroides Friv. [Miscellaneous - Lycaena Eros var. eroides Friv.]. - Rovartani Lapok 9: 193-194 [in Hungar­ ian]. AIGNER-ABAFI, L. [V.] ( 1 906ÎÏ): Schmetterlings-Aberrationen aus der Sammlung des Ungarischen National-Museums. - Annales historico-naturalesMitsei nationalis hungarici4: 484-531, 23 Abb, Taf. 13, 14 (15 Abb.). AIGNER-ABAFI, L. [V.] (1906/;): Neue Falterformen aus Ungarn. - Entomologische Zeitschrift [Stuttgart] 19 (35): 207-210. ANONYMOUS [ 1842]: Catalog der Sammlung europäischer Schmetterlinge des Friedrich Treitschke in Wien. - [Wien], 7 pp. BANG-HAAS, O. (1927): Novitates Macrolepidopterologicae, Katalog der Neubeschreibungen von Pakte arktischen Macrolepidopteren. Band 2. - Verlag Dr. O. Staudinger und A. Bang-Haas, Drcsden-Blasewitz, xxiii + 301 S. BÁLINT, Zs. (1999): Annotated list of type specimens of Polyommatus sensu Eliot of the Natural History Museum, London (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). - Neue entomologische Nachrichten 46: 1-89, 2 tabs, 4 col. pis (with 71 figs). BÁLINT, ZS. & KERTÉSZ, A. (1990): A survey of the subgenus Plebejides (Sauter, 1968) - prelimi­ nary revision. - Linneana belgica 12 (5) (1989): 190-224, 53 figs. (25 in col.). BÁLINT, ZS. & LUKHTANOV, V. (1990): Plebejus (Plebejides) pylaon (Fischer von Waldheim, 1 832) s.str. et ses sous-espèces (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). - Linneana belgica 12(7): 274-292, 13 figs. BERGE, F. (1851): Schmetterlingsbuch oder allgemeine Naturgeschichte der Schmetterlinge und besondere der europäischen Gattungen nebst einer vollständigen Anweisung zum Fang, zur Erziehung, Zubereitung, Aufbewahrung, und überhaupt zu allen dem Sammler nöthigen Dingen. - Verlag von Scheitlin & Krais, Stuttgart, vi + 232 pp, 52 pis. BERNARDI, G. (1970): La variation géographique de 1'Anthocharis gruneri Flerrich-Schäsffer. - Lambillionea 70 (1-4): 1-13, 3 figs, 1 carte. BOISDUVAL, J. A. (1840): Genera et Index Methodicus Europaeorum Lepidopterorum. - Apud Roret, Bibliopolam, Parisiis, x + 238 pp. BOLLOW, C. (1929-1931): Die Palcarktischc Tagfalter. Supplement. Parnassius, Pieridae, Nympha- lidae (part), Lycaenidae (part). - In: SEITZ, A. (ed.) Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde 1 (Suppl): 20-125, 191-196, 250-306, 327-399. Kernen Verlag, Stuttgart. BRIDGES, CH. (1994): Catalogue of the Family-Group, Genus-Group, and Species-Group Names of the Riodinidae & Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera) of the World. - Published by the author, Urbana, Illinois, 1128 pp. CARBO.NELL, F. (1994): Contribution à la connaissance du genre Polyommatus Latreille, 1804: le complexe ultraspécifique de Polyommatus eros-eroides au Moyen-Orient et en Transcaucasic (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) (2cmc partie: diagnose et discussion). - Linneana belgica 14(8): 439-454, 6 figs, 1 tab., 1 pl. coul. (9 figs). DOIIRN, C. A. (1845): Vereinsangelegenheiten.-EntomologischeZeitung Stettin6 (10): 305-307. [DOUBLEDAY, E. ] ( 1847): List of the specimens oflepidopterous insects in the collection of the Brit­ ish Museum. Part II. - Edward Newman, London, 57 pp. [DOUBLEDAY, E.] ( 1848): List of the specimens oflepidopterous insects in the collection of the Brit­ ish Museum, Appendix. - Spottiswoode and Shaw, London, 37 pp. DUPONCIIEL, P. A. J. (1844): Catalogue méthodique des Lépidoptères d'Europe distribués en familles, tribus et genres avec l'exposé des caractères sur lesquels ces décisions sont fondées, et l'indication des lieux et des époques où l'on trouve chaque espèce; pour servir de complé- ment et de rectification à l'histoire naturelle des Lépidoptères de France. - Méquignon- Marvis, Paris, 523 pp, 90 pis coul. (pp. 1-64, [1844J, 65-296 [1845], 297-523 [1846]). EVANS, W. H. (1955): A revision of the genus Tarucus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) of Europe, North Africa and Asia. - The Entomologist 88: 179-187, 14 [recte 16] text figs. FREYER, C. F. ([ 1831 ]-l 858): Neuere Beiträge zur Schmetterlingskunde mit Abbildungen nach der Natur. - C.|hristian] F.friedrich] Freyer, Carl Kollmann (Bde. 1-3), Rieger (Bde. 4-7), Augsburg; 7 Bde. in 120 Hefte, 700 kol. Tat'.: 1 (1-16): 182 S., 96 Taf., ([1831 ]-l833); 2 ( 17-32): 162 S„ 96 Tai"., ([ 1833]-1836); 3 (33^8): 134 S., 96 Taf., ([ 1836]-l 839); 4 (49-64): 167 S., 96 Taf., ([1839]-1842); 5 (65-80): 166 S., 96 Tat"., (1842-1845); 6 (81-100): 195 S., 120 Taf., (1846-1852); 7 (101-120): 178 S., 100 Tai"., (1853-1858). FREYER, C. F. (1846): Lepidopterologisches. - Entomologische Zeitung Stettin 11 (7): 366-367. FRIVALDSZKY, I. (1835): Közlések a 'Balkány' vidékén tett természettudományi utazásról. [Intellig­ ences on the natural history journey taken in the Balkan region.] - A Magyar Tudós Társaság Evkönyvei 2: 235-276, 7 pis [in Hungarian]. FRIVALDSZKY, I. (1837c/): Neue Kaefcr, Falter und Schnecken aus den balkanischen Gebirgen. - F cum us 1 (2): 84-93. FRIVALDSZKY, I. (1837/?): Balkány vidéki természettudományi utazás. [Natural history journey in the Balkan Region.] - A Magyar Tudós Társaság Evkönyvei3: 156-184, 8 pis [in Hungarian]. FRIVALDSZKY, I. (1840): Természettudományi utazás a 'Balkány' vidékén. [Natural history journey in the region of the Balkans.] - A Magyar Tudós Társaság Évkönyvei 4: 194-207, 12 pis [in Hungarian]. FRIVALDSZKY, I. (1845): Rövid áttekintése egy természetrajzi utazásnak, az európai Törökbiroda­ lomban, egyszersmind néhány a közben újdonnat fölfedezett állatnak leírása. [Brief overview of a natural history journey taken in the European Ottoman Empire, meanwhile the description of some newly discovered animals.] - A Királyi Magyar Természettudományi Társulat Év• könyvei, Pest 1: 163-187, 3 pis [in Hungarian]. FRIVALDSZKY, I. (1864a): II. Lepidoptera Europaea. - In: Frivaldszky Imre rovargyűjteményének jegyzéke. [Catalogue of the Insect Collection of Emcricus Frivaldszky.] - Manuscript folio, Buda, 86 pp. [HNHM, EC 734] FRIVALDSZKY, I. (1864£>): TV. Insecta Exotica: Lepidoptera Exotica. - In: Frivaldszky Imre rovar- gyűjteményének jegyzéke. [Catalogue of the Insect Collection of Emcricus Frivaldszky.] - Manuscript folio, Buda, 10 pp. [HNHM EC 734] FRIVALDSZKY, I. (1865): Jellemző adatok Magyarország faunájához. [Characteristic data to the fauna of Hungary]. - Emich Gusztáv Magyar Akadémiai Nyomdász, Pest, 274 pp, pis I—X III [in Hungarian]. FRIVALDSZKY, E. [I.] (1868a): Aus den charaktcrischcn Angaben zur Fauna Ungarns. - //;: Riedl, Ungarische Revue, Verlag Ludwig Aigner, Budapest, pp 48-68. [FRIVALDSZKY, I.] (1868/?): Die Schmetterlinge Ungarn's, eine frei Uebersetzung aus dem Unga­ rischen. - Manuscript folio, Ofen, 40 + xx pp [HNHM, EC 61] GERHARD, [P.] B. ([ 1850]—1853): Versuch einer Monographie der europäischen Schmeiterlings- arlen: Thecla, Polyomattus [sie], Lycaena, Nemeobius. Als Beitrag zur Schmetterlingskunde. — [Paul] Bernhard Gerhard, Hamburg & Wolfgang Gerhard, Leipzig, in 10 Hefte, 21 S., 39 kol. Tat".: (1): 1-4, Taf. 1-4, (1850); (2): 5, Taf. 5-8, (1850); (3): 7-8, Taf. 9-12, (1850); (4): 9, Taf. 13-16, (1851); (5): 11, Taf. 17-20, (1851); (6): 13, Taf. 21-24, (1851); (7): 15, Taf. 25-28, (1851); (8): 17, Taf. 29-32, (1851); (9): 19, Taf. 33-36, (1852); (10): 21, Taf. 37-39, (1853), Title p. (1853). HACKER, H. (1998): Die Typen der von E. J. Ch. Espcr (1742-1810) in seinem "Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der Natur" beschriebenen Noctuoidca (Lepidoptera). - Esperiana 6: 433-468, [4] figs, pis N-O. HÄUSER, C. L. & ECKWEILER, W. (1997): A catalogue of the species-group taxa in Agrodiaetus Hübner, 1822, a subgenus of Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). - Nachrichten des entomologischen Vereins Apollo, N.F., (Supplement 16): 53—112. HEMMING, A. F. (1931): New material regarding the dates of the plates of the Papiliones in Jacob Hübner's "Sammlung europäischer Schmetterlinge," with notes on the synonymy and type lo­ calities of certain species described therein. - Transactions of the entomological Society of London 79 (3): 493-504. HEMMING, F. (1937): Herrich-Schäffer (G. A. W.), Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von Europa, zugleich als Text, Revision und Supplement zu J. Hübner's Sammlung euro­ päischer Schmetterlinge, 1843-1856. - In: HEMMING, F.: Hübner. A bibliographical and sys­ tematic account of the entomological works of Jacob Hübner and of the supplements thereto by Carl Geyer [,] Gottfried Franz von Frölich and Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schäffer. Vol. I. Royal Entomological Society of London, London, p. 579-589. HERRICH-SCHÄFFER, G. A. W. (1843-1856): Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von Europa, zugleich als Text, Revision und Supplement zu Jakob Hübner's Sammlung euro­ päischer Schmetterlinge. - G. J. Manz, Regensburg, 6 Bde. in 69 Hefte, 636 kol. Taf., 36 nicht kol. Taf.: 1 (Hefte 1-7, 9-14, 26, 32, 36-37, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59, 65-66): Sign. 1-22, a-f, S. 1-164, Index 1-24, Taf. Papilionides 1-134, Taf. Hesperides 1-7 (1843-1855); 2 (Hefte 1-2, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21, 23, 25-26, 31-32, 37-38, 41, 43-45, 47, 49-52, 54, 56, 59, 67): Sign. 1-57, a-q, S. 1-450, Index [al |-64, Taf. Hesperides 1, Taf. Cossides 1, Taf. Hepialides & Cossides 2, Taf. Zygaenides 1-113, Taf. Sesiides 1-10, Taf. Sphingides 1-4, Taf. Bombycidcs 1-32, Taf. Noctuides 1-124, Taf. Nyctcolidae 1 (1843-1855); 3 (Hefte 1,8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24-27, 31-32, 35-36, 43, 45, 50, 52, 60, 63, 65-66, 69): Sign. 1-23, a-h, k, S. 1-184, Index [l]-34, Taf. Geometrides 1-91 (1843-1856); 4 (Hefte 27-30, 33-34, 39^10, 44, 46, 48, 53, 55, 57, 60, 63, 68): Sign. 1-36, a-m, S. 1-288, Index [11-48, Taf. Pyralides 1-23, Taf. Tortricidcs 1-59 (1847-1855); 5 (Hefte 22, 30, 34, 39, 42,44, 46, 48, 53, 55, 57-68): Sign. 1-50, a-n, S. 1-394, Index [l]-52, Taf. Tincides 1-124, Taf. Pterophides 1-7, Taf. Microptcryges 1 (1847-1855); 6 (Hefte 1,3,6-9, 11, 13, 17,22,35-38,40, 48,55,60,68-69): Sign. Erkl. Taf. Umrissen [Macrolep.J a, a*, x-xxx, Erläut. Taf. Umrissen Microlep. 1-2, Nachtr. Bd. 1. 1-23, Syst. Lep. Eur. A-I, K-S, Index Univers, a-m, S. Schlusswort [i]-[iv], Erkl. Taf. Umrissen [Macrolep.] [I]-XVIII, Erläut. Taf. Umrissen Microlep. [I]-VIII, Nachtr. Bd. 1. [11-178, Syst. Lep. Eur. [11-72, Index Univers. [l[-48, Taf. Umrisstaf. Macrolep. [Il-XXII, Taf. Umrisstaf. Microlep. I-XIV (1843-1856). HESSELBARTH, G., VAN OORSCHOT, H. & WAGENER, S. (1995): Die Tagfalter der Türkei unter Berücksichtigung der angrenzenden Länder. - Selbtsverlag Sigbert Wagener, Bocholt, 1354 S., 21 Tab., 75 Abb., 2 Farbkarten, 36 Farbtaf. (mit 306 Abb.) (Bd. 1 & 2) + 847 S., 128 Farbtaf., 13 Taf., IV + 342 Verbreitungskarte (Bd. 3). HEYDENREICH, [G. H.] (1851): Lepidopterorum Europœorum Catalogus methodicus. Systemati­ sches Verzeichniss der europaeischen Schmetterlinge. - 3. Aufl., Julius Klinkhardt, Leipzig, 130 S. + 1 S. Nachtrag [1854]. HlGGINS, L. G. (1941): An illustrated catalogue of the Palearctic Melitaea (Lep. Rhopalocera)- Trans­ actions of the Royal entomological Society of London9\ (7): 175-365,214 figs., 7 maps, 16pis. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999): Fourth Edition, adopted by the International Union of Biological Sciences. - International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Nat­ ural History Museum, London, XXX + 306 pp. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1954): Opinion 278. Addition to the "Offi­ cial List of Generic Names in Zoology" of the names often genera of the Sub-order Rhopalo- cera of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta), species of which were cited in the undated leaflet commonly known as the "Tentamen", prepared by Jacob Hübner, which is believed to have been distributed to correspondents in 1806, a leaflet rejected in "Opinion 97". - Opinions ren­ dered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London; Vol. 6 (part 10): 95-1 18. KEFERSTEIN, [W. G. A.] (1840): Flüchtige Bemerkungen über: Boisduval Genera et Index Methodicus Europaeorum Lepidopterorum. - Entomologische Zeitung Stettin 11 (1): 166-176. KEFERSTEIN, [W. G. A.] (1851): Versuch einer kritisch-systematischen Aufstellung der curop. Lepidopteren mit Berücksichtigung der Synonymie. - Entomologische Zeitung Stettin 12 (7): 220-224, (8): 242-256, (9): 272-283, (10): 304-319, (11): 323-328. KUDRNA, O. (1977): A Revision of the Genus Hipparchia Fabricius. - E. W. Classey Ltd., Faring­ don, Oxon, 300 pp, 2 + 353 figs. KUDRNA, O. (1985): Butterflies of Europe. Volume 1 : Concise Bibliography of European Butterflies. - Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, [IV] + 447 pp. KUDRNA, O. & WlEMERS, M. (1990): Lepidopterology in Europe. - In: KUDRNA, O. (ed.) Butterflies of Europe. Volume 2: Introduction to Lepidopterology, pp. 13-77. - Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, 559 pp, 93 text figs, 25 tabs, 2 diagrs, 4 col. pis (with 32 phot.). LEDERER, J. (1852): Versuch, die europäischen Lepidopteren (einschliessig der ihrem Habitus nach noch zur europäischen Fauna gehörigen Arten Labradors, der asiatischen Türkei und des asiatischen Russlands) in möglichst natürliche Reihenfolge zu stellen, nebst Bemerkungen zu einigen Familien und Arten. I. Abtheilung: Die Rhopaloceren. - Verhandlungen der zoolo­ gisch-botanischen Vereins in Wien 2: 14-54. LEDERER, J. ( 1857): Die Noctuinen Europas, mit Zuziehung einiger bisher meist dazu gezählte}] Ar­ ten des asiatischen Russland's, Kleinasien 's, Syrien's und Labrador's. - Gerold, Wien, 267 S., 4 Taf. [LEDERER, J.J ( 1860): Albert Kindermann (Sohn). - Wiener entomologische Monatsschrift 4:251 -255. LEESTMANS, R. (1988): Histoire de l'exploration lépidoptérique de l'île de Crète (Insecta Lepido­ ptera). - Linneana belgica 11(8): 389-413, figs 10-13. LELŐ, S. (2000): Revised inventory of the butterflies of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Insecta: Lepido­ ptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionidea [sic]). - Natura Croatica 9 (2): 139-156. MEYER-DÜR, [L. R.l (1852): Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der Schweiz. I. Abtheilung. Tagfalter. Mit Berücksichtigung ihrer klimatischen Abweichungen nach horizontaler und vertikaler Verbreitung. - Neue Denkschriften der Schwe ize tischen Gesellschaft der Naturwisschenschaft 12: 1-239, 1 kol. Taf. NEKRUTENKO, Y. P. (1974): Comparative notes on certain West-Palcarctic species of Agriades, with description of a new subspecies of A. pyrenaicus from Turkey (Lycaenidae). - Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society, [Cambridge, Massachusetts]. 28 (3): 278-288, 20 figs. NEKRUTENKO, Y. P. (2000): A catalogue of the type specimens of Palaearctic Riodinidae and Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera, Rhopaloccra) deposited in the collection of the Museum für Natur­ kunde der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. - Nota lepidopterologica 23 (3-4): 192-352. OLIVIER, A. (1993): The butterflies of the Greek island of Ródos: taxonomy, faunistics, ecology and phenology with a tentative synthesis on the biogeography of the butterflies of Kriti (Crete), Kárpathos, Ródos, the Eastern Aegean islands and Kfpros (Cyprus) (Lepidoptera: Hespe­ rioidea & Papilionoidea). - Vlaamse Vereniging voor Entomologie, Antwerpen, 250 pp, 17 tabs, 6 pis (2 in col.), 21 text figs. OLIVIER, A. (1999): On the publication dates of the "Versuch einer Monographie der europäischen Schinctterlingsarten: Thccla, Polyomattus [sie], Lycaena, Nemeobius. Als Beitrag zur Schmet­ terlingskunde" by Paul Bernhard Gerhard (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). - Phegea [BercheimJ27 (4): 127-140, 3 figs. OLIVIER, A. (2000a): Pseudochazara beroe: comments on nomenclature, type locality and synonymy (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidac, Satyrinae). - Entomologische Zeitschrift [Sintigart] 110 (7): 217-219. OLIVIER, A. (2000&): Christian Friedrich Freyer's "Neuere Beiträge zur Schmetterlingskunde mit Abbildtingen nach der Natur": an analysis, with new data on its publication dates (Insecta, Lepidoptera). - Beiträge zur Entomologie 50 (2): 407-486. REBEL, H. (1903): Studien über die Lcpidopterenfauna der Balkanländer. I. Teil. Bulgarien und Ostrumelien. - Anneden des kaiserlich-königlichen naturhistorischen Hofmuseums 18: 123-348, Taf. III. REBEL, H. (1904): Studien über die Lcpidopterenfauna der Balkanländer. II. Teil. Bosnien und Herzegowina. -Anneden des kaiserlich-königlichen naturhistorischen Hofmuseums 19: 97-378, 5 Textabb., Tafs IV-V. REBEL, IL (1916): Die Lepidopterenfauna Kretas. - Anneuen des kaiserlich-königlichen naturhistorischen Hofmuseums 30: 66-172, 5 Textabb., Taf IV. STAUDINGER, O. (1866): Einige Worte über den verstorbenen O. Gruner in Leipzig. - Entomolej- gische Zeitung Steltin 27: 310-311. STAUDINGER, O. ( 1870): Beitrag zur Lepidopterenfauna Griechenlands. - Horae Se>cietatis entomo- logicae rossicae 7: 3-304, Taf. 1-3. STAUDINGER, O. (1871): Macrolcpidoptera. - In: STAUDINGER, O. & WOCKE, M.: Ceiteilog der Lepielopleren Europa''s und der angrenzenden Länder. 0.[tto] Staudinger, Hermann Burdach, Dresden, S. I-XVI, 1-84, 131-157, 184-192. STAUDINGER, O. (1878-1879): Lepidopteren-Fauna Kleinasien's. - Horae Societatisentomologicae rossicae 14: 129-320, Taf. 1-2 (1878); 321-482, Taf. 3-4 (1879). TREMEWAN, W. G. ( 1988): C. F. Freyer's Neuere Beiträge zur Schmetterlingskunde mit Abbildun­ gen nach der Natur. - Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical series 16 (1): 1-16, 6 figs. Tuzov, V. K., ZlIDANKO, A. B. & DANTCHENKO, A. V. (2000): Genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804. - In: TUZOV, V. K. (ed.): Guide to the butterflies of Russia and adjacent territories (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Volume 2. Libytheidae, Danaielae, Nymphalidae, Riodinidae, Lycaenidae (Series Faunistica 18), pp. 190-196, text fig. 52, col. pis 76-79 (129 figs). - Pensoft, Sofia, Moscow, 580 pp, 57 figs, 88 col. pis. VAN OORSCHOT, H., VAN DEN BRINK, H. & VAN OORSCIIOT, B. (1987): Rhopalocera of Turkey. 3. Geographical variation of Pseudochazara anthelea (IILibner) and description of P. anthelea selcucki n. ssp. (Lepidoptera: Satyridae). - Entomologische berichten [Amsterdam] 47 (6): 91-95, 1 tab., 4 figs. VARGA, Z. (1977): Verbreitung und subspezifische Gliederung der Erebia ottomana Herrich- Schäffer, 1847 (Lcp.: Satyridae) nebst Beschreibung der beiden neuen Subspezies: E. otto­ mana lorkoviciana und E. ottomana drenovskyi (Ercbien-Studien, N III). - A Déri Múzeum Évkönyve [Debrecen] 1976: 5-16, 1 Tab., 1 Karte, 8 Abb. VARGA, Z. & SLIVOV, A. (1977): Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Lepidopterenfauna der Hochgebirgen [sic]. -In: Terrestrial Fauna of Bulgaria. Bulgarian Academy ol Sciences, Sofia, pp. 167-190. [in Bulgarian] WARREN, B. C. S. (1936): Monograph of the Genus Erebia. - Trustees of the British Museum (Natu­ ral History), London, VII + 407 pp, 104 pis (with 1646 figs).