The following quotes have been taken from the official ICZN homepage at http://www.iczn.org/

"The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) is the official body responsible for providing and regulating the system for ensuring that every animal has a unique and universally accepted scientific name."

"The rules in the Code determine what names are potentially valid for any taxon between and including the ranks of subspecies and superfamily."

When I first began organizing html files for lepidoptera, I was completely unaware of the rules of the code and did not understand all the brackets and parentheses that are frequently associated with the individual people who are credited with first describing the species/subspecies.

Based on some comments by Rolf Oberprieler and a closer look at many of the data bases I have been using as references, I have come to understand a few things. I am going to try to explain and am also revising all of the files on the WLSS to reflect this new understanding.

A genus and species name, followed by a describer's name and date, with no brackets or parentheses, such as Epiphora boolana Strand, 1909, indicates that Strand is credited as the first person to submit a written description of the moth he named Epiphora boolana in the year so indicated.

A genus and species name, followed by a describer's name and date in parentheses, such as Epiphora albida (Druce, 1886), indicates that Druce is credited as the first person to submit a written description of the moth he named albida, but his original genus choice was something other than Epiphora. In this case, Druce originally described the moth now known as Epiphora albida as Attacus albida.

I am upgrading files (May 2004) to reflect this standard and have begun to list the original genus name using a green font as in Epiphora albida (Druce, 1886) (Attacus).

Certainly there is nothing significant or code-related in my choice of a green font, and I do not know if this format (original genus in brackets) is in accordance with the code, but some of you may find the information useful/interesting. Often the original genus is not so indicated.

It will probably take several months for this revision to be completed, and I have started with files for African species, utilizing Bouyer's 1999 Catalogue of African Saturniidae.

For the North, Central and South American species I will use Heppner's Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera, Checklist Part 4B as well as Claude Lemaire's works. For the Western Palaearctic I will use Tony Pittaway's website and for Southeast Asia, I will use information from Ulrich Paukstadt.

The following quote is from
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csl-classify4.htm

"Subspecies are normally suggested when apparently geographically isolated populations show different morphological characters to the type species, but whether these actually deserve a different classification has been open to considerable debate."

Additional studies often result in subspecies being "elevated" to full species status or simply being equated to the nominate subspecies.

I have reared both Hyalophora columbia columbia (S. I. Smith, 1865) (Samia) from local populations found in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. This moth is generally credited with a range from Manitoba east along the Canada/U.S. border. I have also reared Hyalophora columbia gloveri (Strecker, 1891) (Platysamia) from Utah. This moth is generally credited with a range along the Rocky Mountains from Alberta to Arizona. To me the two moths are very different in size and colour in the larval stage and in the adult moth stage. Cocoons are also consistently different in their size, shape, texture and colour.

I believe that in the near future Hyalophora columbia gloveri will be elevated to full species status as Hyalophora gloveri (Strecker, 1891)

It is interesting to know that the actual rules of nomenclature have something to do with spelling. If the original describer named a species after a person or place and clearly misspelled the proper name, the "misspelling" may stand as the official name, especially if it has come into general use.

Appeals can be made, and sometimes corrections to original misspellings get approval while at other times they are denied.

I will attempt to utilize the spellings accepted by the ICZN.

The code is quite detailed, and is periodically "updated". I am not pretending to be well versed with any of it, and generally will use conventional/accepted practices in respected publications.

A detailed display can be found at:
http://owww.ruca.ua.ac.be/collembola/doc/iczn4txt.htm

Suggestions/Corrections, based on recent publications, are welcomed.

Use your browser "Back" button to return to the previous page.