MIKHAIL V. KOZLOV Section of Ecology, University of Turku, Finland THE IDENTITY OF TINEA BASOCHESELLA HÜBNER, [1824] (LEPIDOPTERA, ADELIDAE) Kozlov, M. V. 2004. The identity of Tinea basochesella Hübner, [1824] (Lepidoptera, Adeli- dae). – Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 147: 107-109. [ISSN 0040-7496]. Published 1 June 2004. Examination of the original watercolour painting of Hübner’s [1824] figure (pl. [69], fig. [462]) demonstrated that the name Tinea basochesella Hübner, [1824] is most probably a senior subjective synonym of Adela dumerilella Duponchel, [1839]. This newly discovered senior sub- jective synonym, Nemophora basochesella (Hübner, [1824]), has not been used for a species of Nemophora since 1863, whereas the junior synonym, N. dumerilella, is commonly accepted (at least 34 references, by 28 authors, during the past 50 years), so this discovery has no effect on the nomenclature of fairy moths (Adelidae): the junior synonym is protected by the ICZN (4th edn., article 23.9.1). Hübner’s figure is designated as the lectotype of Tinea basochesella Hübn- er (nomen oblitum); the lectotype and paralectotypes of Adela dumerilella Duponchel (nomen protectum) are deposited in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris). Correspondence: Mikhail V. Kozlov, Section of Ecology, University of Turku, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] Key words. – Adelidae; Tinea basochesella; Nemophora dumerilella; nomenclature; nomen pro- tectum; taxonomy; Southern Europe. For almost 20 years I have been intrigued by the consider the species rare or very difficult to obtain, as identity of Tinea basochesella, illustrated by figure indicated by a moderate exchange value (3) ascribed to [462] in the famous work by Jacob Hübner (1796 – the species: the highest value among the Tinea (sensu [1836]). Note that the figure number in this work is lato) included in his list was 6. Further references to erroneously printed as 456, and the plate number 60 N. basochesella as a distinct species were made by instead of [69] (see Hemming 1937: 301 for details). Duponchel ([1839], 1844), who did not possess any While the identity of all other fairy moths depicted in specimen, and Heydenreich (1851a, b). While this work was more or less certain (except for Tinea Duponchel [1839] considered both N. basochesella megerlella: Kozlov & Kaila 2002), the name ‘basoche- and N. dumerilella as belonging to the same section of sella’ had not been confidently associated with any Eu- the genus Adela, Heydenreich (1851a, b) placed the ropean species. Moreover, the last reference to this two in different genera, and listed N. basochesella be- name that I could discover was published 140 years tween N. metallica (Poda) (referred to as N. aerosellus) ago (Herrich-Schäffer [1863]), and the name has been and N. pfeifferella (Hb.). completely forgotten since then. Luckily, the original Zeller (1853) discussed the characters shown on watercolour painting of T. basochesella has survived in Hübner’s plate and found that most of them corre- the library of the Natural History Museum, London sponded to N. dumerilella, although the ochreous basal (Hübner, [1785]), and examination of this figure part of the forewing, dark hindwings and, especially, sheds some light on the identity of this mysterious the antennal base thickened by hairs or scales, did not species. allow him to unequivocally synonymize these two species. Herrich-Schäffer [1855] supported this opin- ion, indicating that he had seen in Hübner’s collection Identity of Nemophora basochesella (Hübner, [1824]) one exceptionally large specimen of N. dumerilella with Hübner had not mentioned the name ‘basochesella’ a missing head, and suggested that the head on Hübn- in any subsequent work, and Herrich-Schäffer (1835) er’s plate was painted arbitrarily. This indeed solves the was probably the first researcher who cited Hübner’s problem with head characters, but discrepancies in name by including Tinea basochesella (as ‘- Basoches wing coloration remain unexplained, and in subse- 462. 3’) in his ‘Nomenclator’ (p. 29). He did not pos- quent publications Herrich-Schäffer (1861, [1863]) sess any specimen of this species, as showed by the mi- listed N. basochesella as separate species, placing it be- nus sign in front of the name. However, he did not tween N. basella (Ev.) and Adela australis (Heyd.). 107 T E, 147, 2004 The figure of Tinea basochesella published by Hüb- Tinea basochesella Hübner, [1824]: pl. [69] fig. [462], nomen oblitum, syn. n. Lectotype (: Southern Europe; ner [1824] is very bright and seems to provide several the specimen shown on the original figure by Hübner is important diagnostic characters. Therefore the failure here designated as lectotype (depository unknown; the of earlier authors to recognise this species may indicate specimen presumably lost, see Hemming 1937). that either the species does not belong to the European Tinea basoches [sic!]: Herrich-Schäffer 1835: 29. fauna, or the figure contains some errors hampering Adela basochesella: Duponchel [1839]: 29. species identification. Since a detailed survey of the ex- Adela basochesiella: Duponchel 1844: 356 (incorrect subse- quent spelling). otic Adelidae in several major collections, including Nematois [sic!] basochesiellus: Heydenreich 1851a: 81, the Natural History Museum (London), did not re- 1851b: 18 (incorrect subsequent spelling). veal any species even resembling figure [462] by Hüb- Nemotois basochesella: Zeller 1853: 84; Herrich-Schäffer ner [1824], I compared T. basochesella with all Adeli- [1855]: 99 (both as a questionable synonym of N. dumer- dae occurring in Europe. As a result, I accept the ilella Dup.). opinion of Zeller (1853) that N. dumerilella (Dupon- Adela basoches [sic!]: Herrich-Schäffer 1861: 27, [1863]: 19. chel, [1839]) is most similar to T. basochesella. Investigation of the type specimens of N. dumerilel- Investigation of Hübner’s original painting (Hübn- la confirmed that the current use of this name is indeed er [1785]) demonstrated that the printed copy is correct. The designation of the lectotype (which was much brighter than the watercolour original, which labelled as such by E. S. Nielsen in 1981, but never shows an indistinct forewing pattern with suffused made available through publication) and two paralec- th colours resembling N. dumerilella much more than totypes is made in accordance with the ICZN (4 edn., the printed image of T. basochesella. Furthermore, the article 74.7) to assure nomenclatural stability within thickness of the antennal base is most probably unin- the genus Nemophora, and because discrimination of tentional – at least the right antenna was originally N. dumerilella from several other species (some of painted with a thin base, but the line has been acci- which are still to be described) on the basis of the orig- dentally spread, giving a false impression of hairs or inal description by Duponchel [1839] is impossible. scales. However, the eyes of the T. basochesella male To the best of my knowledge, the newly discovered are not enlarged as in males of N. dumerilella, but this senior synonym, Tinea basochesella, has not been used may (as suggested by Herrich-Schäffer [1855]) indi- since 1863. At the same time, a more or less compre- cate that the head was painted from another specimen hensive bibliography (to be published in forthcoming or arbitrarily. Finally, Hübner’s specimen was not revision of the genus Nemophora by the present au- spread (Herrich-Schäffer [1855]), and this might ex- thor) includes about 80 references to N. dumerilella, plain why the hind wings are painted too dark, as their among which 34 sources by 28 authors have been colour could not be properly seen from the specimen. published since 1953. Thus, the conditions of ICZN Keeping in mind that N. dumerilella is the only suit- article 23.9.1.2, which requires that the junior syn- able candidate, and accounting for the fact that this onym has been used as the valid name in at least 25 decision is mostly of historical interest, I synonymize publications during the last 50 years, are met. Fur- N. basochesella (Hübner, [1824]) and N. dumerilella thermore, all major revisions (Razowski 1978, Küp- (Duponchel, [1839]). Since Hübner’s collection is lost pers 1980), keys (Wojtusiak 1972, Zaguljaev 1978) (Hemming 1937), I designate Hübner’s figure as lec- and checklists (Wojtusiak 1996, Leraut 1997) have totype of Tinea basochesella Hübner (nomen oblitum) consistently applied this name, which can be consid- for the proper fixation of this taxonomic decision ered as sufficient proof of its universal usage. There- (ICZN article 74.4). fore, in accordance with the procedure described in ICZN (1999), article 23.9.2, the application of the principle of priority is moderated, and the prevailing Nemophora dumerilella (Duponchel) nomen protectum usage of the junior subjective synonym, Nemophora Adela dumerilella Duponchel, [1839]: 372-373, pl. 300 fig. dumerilella (Duponchel, [1839]), is maintained. 12. Lectotype ( (here designated): France, near Paris; la- belled: 4 x 10 mm, red paper, print ‘TYPE’; 8 mm circle, black ink ‘duponche’; 8 mm circle, black ink ‘1517’; 5 x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 20 mm, black ink ‘Dumerilella, D,’; 13 x 10 mm, print + black ink ‘E. S. Nielsen | Gen. slide no. | 2189 ( | E. S. I am grateful to E. J. van Nieukerken, G. S. Robin- Nielsen’; 9 x 21 mm, red paper, print + black ink ‘LECTO- son, J. van Tol, K. R. Tuck and J. Minet for providing TYPE | Adela | dumerilella Dup. | teste E.S.Niesn [sic!] access to collections, for useful discussions, and for ( 1981’. – Paralectotypes: 2 , labeled: 4 x 7 mm, blue to editing the manuscript, and thank SYS-Resource (EC black frame, black ink ‘17 Juilett | Boulougne’; 8 mm cir- cle, black ink ‘1517’; 12 x 21 mm, pink paper, print + Programme ‘Access to Research Infrastructures’) for black ink ‘Paralectotype ( Adela | dumerilella | financial support of study visits to the Natural Histo- Duponchel [1839] | M. Kozlov design. 1999’ (Museum ry Museum in London. National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris). 108.