HEMILEPISTUS REAUMURII (H. MILNE EDWARDS, 1840), ITS AUTHOR(S) AND ITS NOMENCLATURAL STATUS ( TERRESTRIA)

BY

L. B. HOLTHUIS 1) National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

Hemilepistus Budde-Lund, 1879 is a well known of terrestrial isopods, and a quite extensive literature has been published about its biology. Often the date of publication is given as 1885, as Budde-Lund (1885: 151) was the first to give an extensive description of the genus. However, in an earlier publication, Budde-Lund (1879: 4) mentioned the genus Hemilepistus in a simple list without a description, but with a number of species (only mentioned by name) assigned to it. According to Art. 12.2.5 of the latest (4th) edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999: 16), the use before 1931 of one or more available specific names in combination with a new generic name has to be considered an indication, which makes the generic name available. The correct date of publication of the generic name Hemilepistus thus is 1879, not 1885. Its type species is klugii Brandt, 1833, being first selected as such by Budde-Lund (1908: 281). More complicated is the situation with the specific name reaumurii. The species, at present best known as Hemilepistus reaumurii, was first (very well) figured by M. J. C. Savigny (1826) on Crust. pl. 13 fig. 4 of the zoology volume of the well known work “Description de l’Egypte”. Due to Savigny’s illness, the explanation of the plates was assigned to Victor Audouin. The date of Audouin’s contribution is fixed in Opinion 1461 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1987, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 44: 219-220) as 1826. Audouin, 1826 (sometimes incorrectly cited as Audouin, 1825 or as Audouin & Savigny, 1826) was the first to discuss the species, but an examination of his text shows that he did not give it a scientific name. Referring to the species figured on Crust. pl. 13 fig. 4 of Savigny’s atlas, namely, Audouin stated only: “nous donnerons à cette espèce le nom de Réaumur” [“we shall give this species the name of Réaumur”]. He did likewise with the species of pl. 13 fig. 3 (“nous

1) e-mail through: [email protected] © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Crustaceana 78 (10): 1269-1271 Also available online: www.brill.nl 1270 NOTES AND NEWS dédierons cette espèce à Clairville” [“we shall dedicate this species to Clairville”]; see below) and that of pl. 13 fig. 5 (“elle portera le nom de Degeer” [“it will bear the name of Degeer”]; this is Porcellio degeerii Guérin, 1832, a junior synonym of Porcellio laevis Latreille, 1804); no Latin names were given by Audouin in either of these three cases. All the other species of this plate were given available Latin names by Audouin, except figs. 8 and 9, that were mentioned only under the generic name Armadillo. All this shows that there does not exist a “Porcellio reaumurii Audouin, 1826”, and neither a“Porcellio clairvillii Audouin, 1826”. The first author to give an available name to one of these species is Brandt (1833), who gave the name Porcellio clairvillii to the species figured on Savigny’s pl. 13 fig. 4. Brandt also provided a description of it. However, this is the species that Audouin dedicated to R. A. F. de Réaumur (1683-1757) and not the one that he had dedicated to J. P. de Clairville (1742-1830). H. Milne Edwards (1840: 170) was the first to use the name Porcellio Reaumurii for the species figured by Savigny on his pl. 13 fig. 4. Milne Edwards gave a good description, based solely on Savigny’s figure and cited in the synonymy, apart from Savigny, both: “Oniscus Reaumurii, Audouin Explic. des planches de M. Savigny” and “Porcellio Clairvillii, Brandt, Conspectus, p. 127”. This shows clearly that Porcellio clairvillii Brandt, 1833, and P. reaumurii H. Milne Edwards, 1840, are objective synonyms as both have the specimen figured by Savigny on his pl. 13 fig. 4 as the holotype. Most subsequent authors used for the two species figured by Savigny on his pl. 13 figs. 3 and 4 the names that Audouin evidently had intended, but did not legally publish. Budde-Lund (1885: 155-156) used the name Hemilepistus Reaumurii for the present species, and cited Audouin & Savigny as authors. He correctly cited Porcellio Clairvillii Brandt in the synonymy, but considered that name a “lapsus calami”. He listed “Metoponorthus Clairvillii” with “Porcellio Clairvillii Aud. & Savig.” as a synonym, but gave no description, treating it as a species dubia in the genus Metoponorthus Budde-Lund, 1879 [= Porcellionides Miers, 1878]. Vandel (1962: 618) treated “Porcellio clairvillei Audouin, 1825” as a doubtful synonym of Metoponorthus (Metoponorthus) pruinosus (Brandt, 1833) [= Porcellionides pruinosus]. H. Schmalfuss (2003: 221) treated “Porcellio clairvillii Brandt, 1833” as a nomen dubium. So far as I can find, the specific name clairvillii has not been used as a valid name after its original description by Brandt (1833). Since that time the name was considered either a nomen dubium, a junior synonym, or an incorrect identification. The specific name reaumurii, however, has been, and is currently, in general use. The Zoological Record of the last 25 years lists more than 50 papers by more than 25 authors in which the name reaumurii is used for the species. According to Art. 23.9.1.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th ed., 1999: 28): “the prevailing usage must be maintained ... [if] ... the junior synonym ... has been used for a particular taxon as its presumed valid name, in at