[Syrphidae] Re: About Syrphus sexguttatus - reference needed

[ximo mengual sanchis]

Thanks Thomas,

I overlooked the date of Wulp; my mistake. You are right, it was the other
way around. I can accept a typo from Chris and that the valid name is *Syrphus
sexguttatus* Meigen, 1835, but why is this taxon cited as *Melangyna
compositarum* in all recent literature?

No, SD should not be used to justify one or another decision, but it
brought tot my attention this 'issue'. The important question here is
about *sexguttaus
*and *compositarum*, I guess.

Cheers,

Ximo



El mar, 2 nov 2021 a las 12:36, Thomas Pape (<tpape at snm.ku.dk>) escribió:

> Dear Ximo,
>
>
>
> Thanks for helping to get things straight in Systema Dipterorum.
>
> Simple questions in nomenclature are often not so easy to solve, but here
> is my take:
>
>
>
> You mention that “*Syrphus sexguttaus* Meigen, 1835 and *Syrphus
> sexguttatus* Meigen, 1838 are junior homonyms of *Syrphus sexguttata*
> Wulp, 1882”.
>
> It certainly is the other way round. *Syrphus sexguttata* Wulp, 1882 is
> annotated as a junior synonym in Systema Dipterorum, but it should also be
> given as a junior primary homonym.
>
>
>
> *Syrphus sexguttatus* Meigen, 1835 is given in Systema Dipterorum as a
> junior synonym of *Melangyna* (*Melangyna*) *sexguttata* (Meigen, 1838).
> My take is that Chris simply happened to switch the two homonymous names
> around.
>
>
>
> SD also lists *Syrphus compositarum* Verrall, 1873 as a junior synonym of
> *Melangyna* (*Melangyna*) *sexguttata* Meigen, which looks correct if it
> is the senior of the two Meigen names.
>
>
>
> Some confusion certainly is apparent here, and this is why Neal and I are
> very strict on providing all records in SD with an authority reference
> (which will take time …). SD should not bring any new taxonomic or
> nomenclatural decisions. Chris largely followed this approach, with
> syrphids being an exception.
>
>
>
> /Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ximo mengual sanchis <xmengual at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 2. november 2021 12:01
> *To:* Hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>; Neal
> Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
> *Subject:* About Syrphus sexguttatus - reference needed
>
>
>
> You don't often get email from xmengual at gmail.com. Learn why this is
> important <http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I have a very simple question, easy to solve, but I cannot find a
> reference for citing.
>
>
>
> The na*me Syrphus sexguttatus *Meigen, 1838 appears as a valid senior
> synonym of *Syrphus compositarum *Verral, 1873. Recent literature use *Melangyna
> compositarum *as a valid name for this taxon.
>
>
>
> *Syrphus sexguttaus* Meigen, 1835 and *Syrphus sexguttatus* Meigen, 1838
> are junior homonyms of *Syrphus sexguttata* Wulp, 1882 (a synonym of *Scaeva
> melanostoma* Macquart). Thus, I assume that people use the junior synonym *Melangyna
> compositarum* for *Syrphus sexguttatus* Meigen as it is an homonym of *Syrphus
> sexguttatus* Wulp. Any reference for this?
>
>
>
> Secondly, why is *Syrphus sexguttatus* Meigen, 1838the valid reference
> citation and not *Syrphus sexguttaus* Meigen, 1835 ?
>
>
>
> Any help is welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ximo
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/syrphidae/attachments/20211102/6ca5e412/attachment-0001.html>