Bombyliae Hübner, [1819] [Invalid]

Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) proposed a number of changes to the nomenclature of the higher classification of the Sphingidae based on their interpretation of one of the supraspecific categories employed by Hübner ([1819]), arguing as follows: “Hübner, in typical for that time complicated and sophisticate manner, has divided the family on some taxonomically different categories. Among them were Strips [sic; recte Stirps], Familia and Coitus. Hübner’s Familia had nothing common with the recent understanding or meaning of the family, being used for rather artificial moth group joined by a character chosen by the author, and led to Coitus, which can be identical with modern «genus». Thus, Hübner’s Familia shall to be identified as a group of genera or (sub)tribe, whereas Strips was a higher category based on the generic names and therefore may be considered a subfamily. This treatment is also supported by ‘The Code…’ (see Article 11.7.1.1). This excursus and this meaning are important for understanding, because Hübner’s taxonomic scheme has a priority under most known names.” (cited verbatim from the English Taxonomic Appendix) In his Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], Hübner ([1819]) employed the final version of the hierarchical system of classification that he had first proposed in his Tentamen determinationis digestionis... (Hübner, [1806]). The history of the growth and evolution of Hübner’s ideas on classification was discussed in detail by Hemming (1937). In the Verzeichniss, Hübner used six hierarchical levels – Phalanx, Tribus, Stirps, Familia, Coitus and Genus – which Hemming (1937) interpreted as equivalent to the modern suborder/superfamily, superfamily/family, subfamily, tribe, genus and species respectively. Of these, Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) chose only the Stirpes to interpret as available names in the family-group in the modern system of classification of Sphingidae. Hübner ([1819]: 130-142, recognized five Stirpes in what we would now consider to be Sphingidae: Bombyliae, Eumorphae, Deilephilae, Manducae and Smerinthi. Based on these taxa, Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) proceeded to replace the three long-established and well-known higher taxa Macroglossinae, Philampelini and Choerocampina with Bombyliinae, Eumorphini and Deilephilina respectively. Smerinthinae did not change, other than its authorship and date. As for Manducae, Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) were inconsistent in their application; in their table, Manducinae was proposed to replace Sphinginae (even though the latter has clear priority) but in their “fixed resultant version”, Sphinginae was retained. However, they did not then replace Acherontiini with Manducini, as would have been required by their interpretation. However, there are several reasons why these proposed changes to the family-level nomenclature of the Sphingidae by Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) must be rejected: 1. Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) cited Article 11.7.1.1 in support of their position but gave no explicit explanation of why that should be considered the case. Presumably, their argument was that Hübner’s Stirpes were “nouns in the nominative plural formed from an available generic name [Art. 29] (indicated either by express reference to the generic name or by inference from its stem”. The Stirpes names are indeed nouns in the nominative plural indicated by inference from the stem of a generic name. However, Article 11.7.1.1 continues, stating that “the generic name [that forms the stem of the family-group name] must be a name then used as valid in the new family-group taxon [although] use of the stem alone in forming the name is accepted as evidence that the author used the generic name as valid in the new family-group taxon unless there is evidence to the contrary”. It may at first appear that the Stirpes names meet this criterion, but they do not. Throughout the whole of the Verzeichniss, Hübner never included the genus on which the Stirps name was based as a valid genus in that Stirps. Consequently, the Stirpes cannot be interpreted as available family-group names and they are all rejected as such here. Indeed, prior to the Verzeichniss, Hübner had treated the five Stirpes (Bombylia, Deilephila, Eumorpha, Manduca and Smerinthus) as the equivalent of modern genera. However, as noted by Hemming (1937: 16), “Hübner had come to realise by the time that he compiled the Verzeichniss that his old genera (Stirpes) were much too large and much too heterogeneous and therefore that they required extensive subdivision. This subdivision he effected by introducing a whole series of new names to represent genera (in the modern sense) and by transferring (in the plural form) the (Stirps) names, which he had previously employed (in the singular form) as generic names, to denote a new category in his classification”. Although Hemming considered that this new concept of Stirps was “the equivalent to the modern Sub-Family”, Hübner was not erecting new names but simply pluralizing pre-existing generic-level names and applying them at the next level up in his hierarchy (in this respect, it should also be borne in mind that he did not employ the name Sphinx for a genus, only for the Phalanx, Sphinges, i.e. at the level of modern suborder/superfamily). It could thus be argued that the Verzeichniss Stirpes still fall within the nomenclatural genus-group (despite being plurals) and should not be applied to family-group taxa. The concept of Stirps adopted in the Verzeichniss really does not have any equivalent in the modern Linnaean system of nomenclature and trying to introduce these unused names now, two centuries later, can only lead to unnecessary instability and confusion. 2. Other arguments could also be brought to bear to reject the changes proposed by Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012). First, the Stirpes names are all nomina oblita, having been unused since before 1899, and so prevailing usage should be maintained in the interests of nomenclatural stability. There is nothing to be gained by replacing well-known taxon names such as Macroglossinae even if the replacement names were available. Indeed, using the Stirps names would have serious ramifications throughout all of Lepidoptera, the effects and implications of which Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012) ignored. So, for all of the above reasons, but particularly the arguments presented under point 1, the changes to the nomenclature of the higher classification of Sphingidae proposed by Zolotuhin & Ryabov (2012), based on Hübner’s ([1819]) Stirpes, are rejected.