The case of Lepidothrix, Lepidotrix and Neolepidothrix:
the importance of the original literature in taxonomic decisions
Dario Zuccon*
UMS 2700, Service de Systmatique Molculaire, Dpartement Systmatique et Evolution, Musum National d’Histoire Naturelle,
57 rue Cuvier, CP 26, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
Introduction
Paclt (2009) drew attention to the alleged homonymy of
two genus-group names, Lepidothrix Bonaparte, 1854
and “Lepidothrix” Menge, 1854, currently in use in
birds and in thysanurans, respectively. Paclt (2009) affirmed that Lepidothrix Bonaparte, 1854 and “Lepidothrix” Menge, 1854 are homonyms, that the former was
published later and that “Lepidothrix” Menge, 1854 is
in prevailing usage in the thysanuran literature. He concluded that Lepidothrix Bonaparte, 1854 was preoccupied by “Lepidothrix” Menge, 1854. Following the
provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (hereafter the Code, ICZN, 1999) in case of
homonyms without synonyms (Art. 60.3), Paclt proposed the genus name Neolepidothrix as a replacement
name for Lepidothrix Bonaparte, 1854. However, after
a careful analysis of the original publications it appears
that Paclt based his action on unsupported claims and
uncorrect assumptions.
1. Bonaparte’s name is senior to Menge’s name
Bonaparte (1854b: 316) established the new genus name
Lepidothrix for two species of manakins (Pipridae), previously included in Pipra Linnaeus, 1758. Bonaparte included in the new taxon the species “cyaneocapilla,
Wagl. (herbacea, Spix, fæm.)” (i.e. Pipra cyanocapilla
Hahn, 1826) and “isidorii, Sclater” (i.e. Pipra isidorei
P. L. Sclater, 1852), without selecting a type species.
The type species was subsequently designated by Gray
(1855: 147), who selected “Pipra cyanocapilla, Wagl.”
(i.e. Pipra cyanocapilla Hahn, 1826, currently a junior
synonym of Pipra coronata Spix, 1825, see Hellmayr,
1929: 17). Bonaparte’s name was published in a revision
of the Volucres Anisodactyli that appeared in the August (11th) issue, volume 2 of Ateneo Italiano, a shortlived journal published in Italian in Paris in 1853–1854.
The exact publication date of the August issue is not
known, although Richmond (1917: 573) affirmed that
the issues were published on the 15th of the month. The
11th issue was received by the Acadmie des Sciences
in Paris on or before 28 August and recorded in the
Acadmie proceedings (Anonymous, 1854c: 444). It is
worth mentioning that the manuscript name “Lepidothrix Schiff.” was listed by Bonaparte (1854a) in a general classification of birds published earlier in the same
year in the Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie.
A reprint was presented by the author to the Acadmie
des Sciences in Paris on or before 29 May and recorded in the Acadmie proceedings (Anonymous,
1854a: 1031), and the journal issue received by the Acadmie des Sciences in Paris on or before 26 June and
recorded in the Acadmie proceedings (Anonymous,
1854b: 1156). However, in that publication “Lepidothrix
Schiff.” is a nomen nudum and not available.
# 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Zoosyst. Evol. 87 (2) 2011, 379–382 / DOI 10.1002/zoos.201100015
Received 6 January 2011
Accepted 18 January 2011
Published 23 September 2011
Abstract
The generic name Neolepidothrix Paclt, 2009 was proposed as a replacement name for
Lepidothrix Bonaparte, 1854 (Aves), on ground of preoccupation by “Lepidothrix”
Menge, 1854 (Thysanura). However, a careful analysis of the original publications reveals that Menge used the spelling Lepidotrix. Therefore the two names are not homonyms and they remain valid for their respective taxa. The name Lepidothrix Bonaparte,
1854 is here declared a nomen protectum, taking precedence over the nomen oblitum
Lepidothrix Agassiz, 1846.