The spelling of the name frivaldszkyi Mocsáry
Posted: 30 Nov 2012 13:50The species name frivaldszkyi Mocsáry was often incorrectly written in literature.
Here some samples:
Chrysis Frivaldszkyi Mocsáry, 1882: 84. [Lectotypus ♂ (des. by Móczár, 1965: 171). Hungary, Budapest (Budapest)] is the original combination and the correct name.
Chrysis succincta var. friwaldszkyi: Berland & Bernard, 1938: 99.
Chrysis frivaldskyi: Linsenmaier, 1959a: 114.
Chrysis frivaldszkii: Kimsey & Bohart, 1991: 468.
The names friwaldszkyi, frivaldskyi, frivaldszkii must be considered as incorrect subsequent spelling of Chrysis frivaldszkyi Mocsáry, 1882.
Since in the recent European litature the name is still written in different ways (see Mingo, 1994; Tyrner, 2007, etc.) I suggest to use the correct original spelling: Chrysis frivaldszkyi Mocsáry, 1882
Note. Kimsey & Bohart (1991) and Mingo (1994) placed C. frivaldszkyi in synonym of C. succincta. The two species are clearly separated and easy to identify as already discussed in Rosa (2005: fig. 19).
Here some samples:
Chrysis Frivaldszkyi Mocsáry, 1882: 84. [Lectotypus ♂ (des. by Móczár, 1965: 171). Hungary, Budapest (Budapest)] is the original combination and the correct name.
Chrysis succincta var. friwaldszkyi: Berland & Bernard, 1938: 99.
Chrysis frivaldskyi: Linsenmaier, 1959a: 114.
Chrysis frivaldszkii: Kimsey & Bohart, 1991: 468.
The names friwaldszkyi, frivaldskyi, frivaldszkii must be considered as incorrect subsequent spelling of Chrysis frivaldszkyi Mocsáry, 1882.
Since in the recent European litature the name is still written in different ways (see Mingo, 1994; Tyrner, 2007, etc.) I suggest to use the correct original spelling: Chrysis frivaldszkyi Mocsáry, 1882
Note. Kimsey & Bohart (1991) and Mingo (1994) placed C. frivaldszkyi in synonym of C. succincta. The two species are clearly separated and easy to identify as already discussed in Rosa (2005: fig. 19).