Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for the nominal species Chionobas chryxus Doubleday, 1849 (currently Oeneis chryxus; Insecta, Lepidoptera, NYMPHALIDAE) 1

I strongly disagree that stability is served by use of the plenary power to suppress thevalidly designated lectotype of Chionobas chryxus and replace it with a neotype.

1. The lectotype of Oeneis chryxus designated by Shepard (1984) represents thetaxon as it has been understood since its description. The statement in the abstract ofthe petition ‘the original figure perfectly matches males of one of the two species intowhich the species was later divided’ suggests widespread acceptance that there aretwo species when actually the matter of this species division into two is based only ontwo papers in the same publication.

2. Only one paper has been published to date that utilises the nomenclature putforth by the authors in 2006 (Kondla, 2010) and that paper is by one of those authors.

3. The author of the petition claims that the lectotype is indeterminate, but this isa subjective matter not supported by the views of subsequent researchers. There is noreason to suppose that the male figured in Doubleday & Hewitson, apparently lost,is not the same species as the lectotype, possibly even collected with it, and such hasbeen held to be the case since the lectotype was designated. Most researchers arecompletely unaware of the issue and it seems prudent to await serious considerationfrom a broad spectrum of naturalists before any decision requiring the plenary poweris rendered.

4. It is my opinion that the designation of a neotype through the exercise of theplenary power is unwarranted in the face of what remains a very limited view. It doesnot stabilise an uncertain nomenclature because at this time there is no uncertainnomenclature.

Additional references

Kondla, N.G. 2010. Section 2. Butterflies. Pp. 163–192 in Pohl, G.R., Anweiler, G.G., Schmidt,B.C. & Kondla, N.G. An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada. ZooKeys,38: 1–549.