2017
DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4254.3.7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The identity of Arhodia egenaria Walker, 1866 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonoidea, Mimallonidae) and a new synonym of Cicinnus melsheimeri (Harris, 1841)

Abstract: The holotypes of Arhodia egenaria Walker, 1866 and Cicinnus primolus Schaus, 1928, syn. n., were examined. Both names are junior synonyms of C. melsheimeri (Harris, 1841). Cicinnus melsheimeri (as Perophora egenaria), sensu Hampson, 1904, is a misidentification of C. bahamensis St Laurent & McCabe, 2016.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…102 St Laurent and McCabe (2017) provided discussion regarding the names egenaria and primolus , confirming the synonymy of egenaria and primolus with C.melsheimeri .…”
Section: Annotationsmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…102 St Laurent and McCabe (2017) provided discussion regarding the names egenaria and primolus , confirming the synonymy of egenaria and primolus with C.melsheimeri .…”
Section: Annotationsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…101 The name melsheimeri was published twice by Harris in the same year (Harris 1841a,b), under two different combinations: Saccophoramelsheimeri and Perophoramelsheimerii respectively. Unfortunately, some authors (e.g., St Laurent and McCabe 2016, 2017) incorrectly referenced the second publication to use melsheimeri , which was Harris’ book A report on the insects of Massachusetts, injurious to vegetation , which was published in December of 1841 (Harris 1841b) with the combination Perophoramelsheimerii . Doubleday published Harris’ original description (via a correspondence from Harris) of Saccophoramelsheimeri earlier that year, in May of 1841 (Harris 1841a).…”
Section: Annotationsmentioning
confidence: 99%