3 p. ; 24 cm.Includes bibliographical references

Mutchler, Andrew Johnson.

American Museum of Natural History Scientific Publications

AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATESPublished byNumber 507 THu AMERICAN MuIzuu or NATuRAL HISTORY Nov. 28, 1931New York City59.57, 63 H: 01GENOTYPE DESIGNATIONS OF THE GENERAHYDROPHILUS AND HYDROCHARABY ANDREW J. MUTCHLERIn an attempt to confirm the determinations of certain species ofHydrophilidae from Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, I referred to'Coleopterorum Catalogus,' part 79, published in 1924, in which A.Knisch lists (p. 236) Hydrophilus Leach, type caraboides Linnweus, andHydrous Leach (p. 242), type piceus Linneus.This classification does not agree with that of Leconte and Horn,nor with the usage of most American and many European authors. Itherefore consulted the literature in order to find out to what authorityLeach referred the above genera. Doctor W. Dwight Pierce happenedto visit the Museum while this research was in progress, and he suggestedP. A. Latreille's (1810) 'Considerations Generales sur L'ordre Natureldes Animaux' as a possible source. This publication, not referred to inKnisch's work, afforded (page 190, "Genus 119") a brief diagnosis ofthe genus Hydrophilus, and on page 428 of "Table des Generes avecl'Indication de l'Espece" I found a fourth and last species under thecaption: "FAMILLE XIV HYDROPHILIENS" "Hydrophile, Hydrophiluspiceus, Fab." This species was originally described by Linnaeus, andthere is no doubt that Latreille referred to piceus Linnaeus, since it wascustomary at that time to cite Fabricius as author for Linnaean species.A reference to the works of Fabricius will show that he quotes bothLinnweus and Geoffroy among his citations.As the above work of P. A. Latreille was published five years priorto that of Leach, 1815, 'Edinburgh Encyclopedia,' IX, p. 96, I am of theopinion that piceus Linnweus and not caraboides Linnasus is thereby madethe type of HIydrophilus. This is also supported by tha opinion of theInternational Commission of Zoological Nomenclature, which, althoughthe vote on it was not unanimous, I believe worthy of serious considera-tion: "Opinion 11, The Designation of Genotypes by Latreille, 1810."The following is a copy in part:The Secretary has examined Latreille (1810) in search of evidence in support ofthe contention which Miss Rathbun states has been advanced, but he has failed toAMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATESfind it. On the contrary he finds that Latreille distinctly says "avec l'indication deL'esp&ce," and not avec l'indication d'une esp6ce.If all earlier authors had done as Latreille has here done, there would be very littleconfusion in nomenclature to-day, and from the evidence submitted no reason isapparent why Latreille's type designations should not stand as such.It is self-understood that this opinion does not imply that Latreille's (1810)designations should take precedence over any earlier writings.Opinion written by Stiles.Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Graff,Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Maehrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright.Opinion dissentedfrom by 1 Commissioner: Hoyle who says: "I think that theevidence adduced by Stebbing (1898) from Latreille's writings shows that he did notuse the word 'type' in the sense now attributed to it in zoological nomenclature. Itwas with him synonymous with 'example."'Not voting 2: Osborn, Studer.in view of the above facts I feel satisfied that-the type of Hydro-philus was clearly designated as piceus Linnaeus by Latreille (1810). Ialso believe that Geoffroy should be given credit as author of the genus,for the following reasons: In 'Historie abreg6e des Insectes aux Environsde Paris,' 1762, I, pp. 180-184, Geoffroy erects the genus Hyidrophilus,including the Linnaean species piceus, caraboides, and fuscipes, anddescribes two other forms, one of which is a nomenclatorially invalidpolynomid and the other, H. fulvus, one of the few binomials (possiblyaccidental and subject to rejection) appearing in this work.Unfortunately, Geoffroy, as was the case with many of the earlierauthors, failed to designate a type for his genus. Therefore, it was leftfor some later author to make such a designation and this seems to havebeen clearly done by Latreille in 1810.If we take into consideration the use of the name Hydrophilus, fromthe time it was referred to as a genus to the time Latreille designated thegenotype, we shall find the following: Hydrophilus Geoffroy, 1762 and1764, 'Hist. des Ins. envir. de Paris,' I, pp. 180-184, P1. iII, fig. 1 (figureof piceus); 0. Muller, 1764, 'Faundt Insectorum Fridrichsdalina,' p.xvi (a copy ? of Geoffroy's diagnosis); Linnaeus, 1767, 'Syst. Nat.,'12th Ed., pp. 664-667 (Hydrophilus Geoffroy cited under Dytiscup);DeGeer, 1774, 'Mem. Ins.,' IV, pp. 365-381, P1. xiv, figs. 1-11 (givesa detailed description of Hydrophilus. In his description of the genus,DeGeer refers to the drawings of H. piceus which are in detail and whichshoWf the component parts of the insect); Fabricius, 1775, 'Syst. Ent.,'pp. 228-279 (includes nine species under the generic heading); Geoffroy,1799, 'Historie des Ins.,' pp. 180-184, P1. iII, fig. 1 (a second edition of his1762 work); Fabricius, 1801, 'Syst. Eleuth.,' I, pp. 249-255 (includes2 [No. 507HYDROPHILUS AND HYDROCHARAthirty species under the generic heading); P. A. Latreille, 1810, 'Consid.Gen.,' pp. 190 and 428 (on p. 190 a brief diagnosis of the genus is given,and on p. 428 the type of the genus is designated as piceus).The treatment of Hydrophilus conflicts with Hydrous, for Leach(1815) lists the latter as follows: "Hydrous Leach from the LinnaeanMSS. Hydrophilus Marsh. Latr. Fabr. sp. 1 Piceus, Hydrophilus piceusFabricius, Marsham." If we consider the above designation of piceus asthe genotype of Hydrous, this generic name must be placed in synony-my, and the next available name should be used for the genus. In thisconnection I have consulted the literature and find that HydrocharaBerthold, 1827, is the earliest valid name. In his work entitled'Latreille's Naturliche des Thierreichs,' Berthold forms a table for theseparation of the then-known genera of Hydrophilidae, and (on p. 355)in the first part of the table he includes the genera Spercheus, Hydro-philus (Hydrous Leach), and Hydrochara (Hydrophilus Leach). Atranscript of this paper appears in Thon, 1827-1829, 'EntomologischesArchiv.' The genus Hydrochara, which is erected by Berthold in theabove publication, is based on M. Latreille's Hydrochare.1 It is, there-fore, my opinion that Hydrochara Berthold should replace HydrophilusLeach, not of DeGeer and Hydrous of authors. 0If the argument thus presented should prevail it will be necessaryto change the citations in Leng's 'Cat. Coleop. of America North ofMexico,' p. 84, to read as follows: Hydrophilus, 2789 triangularis (Say),.90 ater (Oliv.), .91 insularis (Cast.); Hydrochara, 2793 castus (Say),.94 richseckeri (Horn), .95 obtusatus (Say), .96 lineatus (Lec.). It willalso be necessary to change Bradley's key in 'A Manual of the Generaof Beetles of America North of Mexico,' 1930, p. 54, lines 5 and 10 toread: Hydrophilus, instead of "Hydrous," and Hydrochara, instead of"Hydrophilus."In conclusion, I should like to call attention to the fact that if weignore the 1762 edition of Geoffroy, as has been done by some authors,it will be necessary to change either the names of several of our well-known coleopterous genera or give credit to some later author for theerection of these genera.'See M. Latreille, 1825,' Familks du Regne Animal,' p. 366.19311 3

Hydrophilus and Hydrochara

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

American Museum of Natural History Scientific Publications