Carlo Emery.
Specific Names Repeated in the Linnean Genus Formica.
Psyche 28(1):24-26, 1921.

This article at Hindawi Publishing: https://doi.org/10.1155/1921/64562
CEC's scan of this article: http://psyche.entclub.org/pdf/28/28-024.pdf, 200K
This landing page: http://psyche.entclub.org/28/28-024.html

The following unprocessed text is extracted automatically from the PDF file, and is likely to be both incomplete and full of errors. Please consult the PDF file for the complete article.

Psyche
[February
SPECIFIC NAMES REPEATED IN THE LINNEAN GENUS FORMICA.
BY CARLO EMERY,
Bologna, Italy.
My friend Mr. Donisthorpe published, nearly three years ago,l an article on a well-known list of ants from the environs of Nice, inserted by Leach in 1825 into the "Zoological Record." Mr. Donisthorpe has been no more successful than myself in solving the enigmas which, under the title of descriptions, were submitted by the old English author to his readers. I should have had no occasion to revert to the matter had not Mr. Donisthorpe decided to replace the name Formica picea Nylander (1846) by F. transkauka-sica Nassonow (1889), because the name F. pica Ieach antedates F. picea Nyl., and notwithstanding the fact that, both insects, in our present nomenclature, have been placed in very different genera.
To be consistent, however, it would be necessary to change many '
other names, and, not to go beyond the list of Leach's names, also the following :
F. afiws Leach (1825), Myrmicinarum genus? and F. affinis Le Guillou (1841), Polyrhachis, have priority over F. affinis Schenck (1851), Lasius.
F. testawipes Leach (1825), Myrmicinarum genus? has priority over F. tesfaceipes F. Smith, Camponotus. There are, I believe, certain principles which should be applied only cum grano salis, i. e,., only when they are practical and useful, and should be abandoned when they merely create embarrassment and confusion. Such is the principle of priority in zoological no- menclature, which certain entomologists have pushed to most re- grettable extremes.
for my part, I shall continue to designate Formica picea by the name which was applied to it by Nylander in 1846; Lasius affinis Schenck and Camponotus testaceipes F. Smith, by the names con- secrated by the 'wage of more than half a century, and I count The Entom. Record, Vol. 30, p. 8-9 (1918). PK&~ 28:24-26 (192 1). hup //psyche enlclub orgt28128-024 html



================================================================================

39211 Emery-Specific Names ~keated in Genus orm mica 25 on the assent of the majority of entomologists, at least in conti- nental Europe.
I have carefully gone over the seventh volume of the ^Catalogus Hymenopteron-iim" of Balla Torre, in quest of names of the Lin- nean genus Formica which have been repeated, and have found the following interesting particulars :
F. longipcs Latr. (1802)) Pheidote; has priority over F. lon- gives Jerdon
( 1851 j , Plagiolepis, and F. longips Gerstsecker (1 858), Cam pon oh.
Through my attribution of Latreille's spe- cies to the genus P7i,eid07e, Ph. Qngipes Pergande will have to take the new name) Ph. grallipes, proposed by Wheeler. F. pilosa Olivier ,(I79l), synonym of Camponotus fulvopiloszis ,De Geer, has priority over F. pilosa F. Smith (1857)) Camponotus ( Colobopsis j == Oolohopsis pub escens Mayr (nee Fabricius) 4. ( Colobopsis) leonardi Emery (1889). This species should take the latter name.
F. pollens Le ftuillou (1841) = Cayponotus sp., near chloroticus Emery, has priority "over F. pollens Nylander (1849), Camponotus. The latter should take a new name.
I propose 0. nylanderi.
8'. thoracica Olivier (1791)) genus? has priority over F. tho- racica Fabricius (1804), Camponotus. This case is identical with the homonymies of Leach's species and of subsequent authors, noted at the beginning of this article. I therefore propose that 0. thora- oicus Fabr. be retained.
dearly the same state of affairs is encountered in the following cases :
F. abdominalis Latreille ( 1 8O2), genus ? Formicinarum seu Do- lichoderinarun~, and F. abdominalis Fabr. (1804)) Camponotus. F. badia- ~atreille (1802)) Pogonomyrmex, and F. badk F. Smith (1857)) Camponotus.
F. carii~ta Fabricius (1804); Polyrhachis, and F- carinata Brull6 (1840)) Camponotus.
F. erythrocephala Fabricius (1775)) Leptomyrmex, and F. ery- throcephala Christ, Camponotus.
F. fervens Drury (1782)) Atta, and F. fervens F. Smith, Cam- ponotus.
F. foetida Linne (1 768), (Mirier (1791)) Neoponem, F. foetida



================================================================================

26 Psyche [February
De Geer (17731, Myrmicinaruin genus, and F. foetida Buckley (18661, Forelius.
F. incifia Schenck (18621, ,Lasius, and F. indsa F. Smith (1858), Formica ?
F. nana Latreille (1802), Pheidole, F. nana Jerdon (1851) = Tapinoma melanocepl'ialuw~, and F. nana F. Smith. (1858), Cam- ponoins.
F. rktida Razoumowsky (1789), genus? and F. nitida F. Smith (18581, Camponotus.
F. vqans Olivier (1791), Eciton, and F. vagm Jerdon (1851), Preno Jepsis.
These examples will suffice, I believe, to prove the inadvisability of changing the names of these ants, merely because they were clqssed, at the time of the publication of their descriptions, in the Linnean genus Formica, though at the present time relegated to the most diverse genera and even to different subfamilies. There are also other names which are repeated twice or several times by ancient authors in the genus Formica', but as they furnish materialfor no discussion of interest, T pass over them in silence.^ 1 For example:
F. bicolor Fabricius (1793), Latreille (17981, Leach (1825), Schilling (1858). F. megacephala Fabricius (1793), Leach (18251, L0mna (18341, etc., etc.



================================================================================