This is a reply to the comment by Craig (BZN 66: 271–272) on Case 3458.
You are here
I have been following the ongoing debate on Case 3458 (BZN 65: 188–193). I have also had the opportunity to read an unpublished reply (now BZN 66: 349–351) by Robbins & Lamas to Craig’s comment (BZN 66: 271–272) on this case. I disagree with Craig’s interpretations and consider them incorrectly supported according to the meaning of Article 13.1 of the Code.
This comment is sent for the purpose of offering complete support for the conservation of the taxon Lycaena florus and the designation of a (new) neotype for the taxon occasionally known as Lycaena castro.
Dr James A. Scott has presented a very fine, detailed case for this position and I will not attempt to condense, repeat, or elaborate on his statements, but I will state that I completely and wholeheartedly support his position on this matter.
In Case 3458 Robbins and Lamas (‘the applicants’) inform us (BZN 65: 189, para. 2) that a checklist of butterflies was being compiled (Lamas, 2004) which took more than 12 years to reach publication. Perhaps not surprisingly, within this period someone else published a book (d’Abrera, 2001) in which were proposed 8 new genera within the LYCAENIDAE, ascribed to d’Abrera or to d’Abrera & Bálint (‘the authors’). The applicants at first considered most of these names to be available but later declared that all were unavailable owing to the phrasing of their respective diagnoses.