Talk:Saaluncifera

Lepidoptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Berio shenanigans

I can't figure out what Berio was trying to accomplish with regards to Saalmuller's Hypogramma uncinata.

He writes:

La species tipo probabilmente e la stessa della Hyogramma uncinata di Saalmuller il quale non si sa perche debba averla riferita a quel genere che non ha nulla in commune coll'insetto; porbabilmente perche egli aveva nelle mani solo una (female). L'identita risulta molto probabile sia per i disegni delle ali che per la forma dei pali, pure disegnati di profilo da Salmuller. E per questa ragione che denomino la species con lo stesso nome, affinche ove dovesse passare in sinonimia non vi sarebbero nomi nuovi da eliminare.

Saaluncifera uncintata n.sp.
La (female) corrisponde esattamente all fig. 162 di Saalmuller; il (male) e piu piccolo di statura, con disegni molto piu fini e sottili e senza plaghe piu scure del fondo.

Google translate (with some basic corections):

The type is probably the same as the Hypogramma uncinata of Saalmuller which is not known because it must have referred to that genus that has nothing in common with the insect; probably because he had only one (female) in his hands. The identity is very probable both for the designs of the wings and for the shape of the poles, also drawn in profile by Salmuller. And for this reason that I call the species with the same name, so that if it were to go into synonymy there would be no new names to be eliminated.

Saaluncifera uncintata n.sp.
The (female) corresponds exactly to fig. 162 of Saalmuller; the (male) is smaller in stature, with much finer and thiner drawings and no darker plagues of the background.

He doesn't want to create a new name that might need to be eliminated in case of synonymy, so he explicitly designates a new name, while repeatedly referring to Saalmuller's work??? Plantdrew (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is why I tagged it for clarification as to how to cite the type species for the genus. I think the type species should be cited as Saaluncifera uncintata Berio, 1966 since he writes "Specie tipo: Saaluncifera uncinata Berio". And then Saaluncifera uncintata Berio, 1966 is in fact cospecific with Hypogramma uncinata Saalmüller, 1891 making the actual name of that species Saaluncifera uncinata (Saalmüller, 1891). Umimmak (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That interpretation and solution seems reasonable. I am more accustomed to the plant code than the ICZN; I understand the ICZN doesn't require any explicit designation of Saaluncifera uncinata (Saalmüller, 1891) as a new combination, but Berio is explicitly NOT placing Hypogramma uncinata Saalmüller, 1891 in Saaluncifera. ButMoth has some comments and references on the situation. Perhaps one of those references makes some statement that establishes Saaluncifera uncinata (Saalmüller, 1891)? (I'm not finding that I have any full text access for the ButMoth references). Plantdrew (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It really seems like the type species authority in the infobox should be listed as Berio, 1966 as per the original designation and I'll probably go ahead and change that if you don't have any objections. At some point after Berio's 1966 paper, someone transferred Saalmüller's H. uncinata to Saaluncifera, making it the senior homonym of Berio's S. uncinata, and also synonymized it with Berio's S. uncinata (as Berio thought would be likely), precluding the need for a replacement name. However the fact that Berio's S. uncinata is no longer a valid name doesn't affect how the type species should be cited. See, e.g., Nye 1975 [1], AfroMoths, NHM etc which all have Saaluncifera uncintata Berio, 1966 as the type species. Umimmak (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, but it would be good to have a note (maybe just a hidden comment) explaining that there is a homonym involved. Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. As a head's up, it's confusing when you use the same taxobox cleanup edit summary to sometimes do purely cosmetic editing like adding spaces around equal signs and rearranging the order of parameters (without flagging the edit as minor), but also sometimes use the same edit summary to make actual changes like removing tags or information without any explanation/justification. Umimmak (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]