106
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
Case 3334
Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE):
proposed conservation of the specific name by giving it precedence over
three senior subjective synonyms
Josef Grieshuber
Singham 42, 94086 Bad Griesbach, Germany (e-mail: Colias@t-online.de)
Bob Worthy
10 The Hill, Church Hill, Caterham, Surrey CR3 6SD, U.K.
(e-mail: bobworthy@btopenworld.com)
Gerardo Lamas
Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos,
Apartado 14–0434, Lima-14, Peru (e-mail: glamasm@unmsm.edu.pe)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the specific name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, which is in widespread use for
a butterfly species of the genus Colias Fabricius, 1807 (family PIERIDAE). The name is
threatened by three little-used senior subjective synonyms, Colias hyale sareptensis
Alphéraky, 1875, Colias hyale alba Rühl, 1893 and Colias hyale meridionalis
Krulikowsky, 1903. It is proposed that C. alfacariensis is given precedence over the
other three names whenever it and any of the others are considered to be synonyms.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; PIERIDAE; Colias; Colias alfacariensis; Colias sareptensis; Colias alba; Colias meridionalis; Europe; Russia; Iran.
1. The name alfacariensis was originally published by Ribbe (1905, p. 137) as
‘Colias hyale ab.[erration] alfacariensis’ and discussed as a geographical form
distinguishable from those that occur in other regions. The name alfacariensis was
unavailable from its first publication in 1905 because of Ribbe’s use of the term ‘ab’.
A proposal was eventually submitted asking the Commission to confirm the
availability of the name, and thus establish its priority over others such as australis
Verity, 1911 and alfacariensis Berger, 1945 (Whitebread et al., 1988, pp. 29–32). The
Commission approved this proposal (Opinion 1657, 1991, p. 272) and placed Colias
alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, thus
ending almost half a century of nomenclatural instability. Because of this it has
recently been considered that the earliest name applicable to the yellow European
species of the hyale group of Colias Fabricius, 1807 which is not hyale Linnaeus, 1758
(Berger, 1945a, pp. 9–10; 1945b, pp. 33–34) is alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905.
2. After several decades of controversy alfacariensis is now the predominantly used
name in numerous publications, and is generally accepted as the valid name for the
species occurring from southern and western Europe to south-western Russia and
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
107
north-eastern Iran. The Commission Secretariat holds a list of 63 references by
72 authors, using the name alfacariensis, published between 1949 and 2003; a much
longer list could easily be compiled. However, C. alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 is not the
oldest available name; it is threatened by the overlooked synonyms C. hyale
sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, C. hyale alba Rühl, 1893, and C. hyale meridionalis
Krulikowsky, 1903. This leaves us with an untenable situation, since the substitution
of any of these three little-known names for the well-established name C. alfacariensis
would cause much confusion.
3. A few years ago, especially in the Russian entomological literature (e.g. Tuzov
et al., 1997, p. 172), another name for the species currently known as C. alfacariensis
Ribbe, 1905 appeared, i.e. ‘Colias sareptensis Staudinger, 1871’. The name ‘sareptensis’ was originally published as ‘No. 64.a. Col. Erate ab. Sareptensis’ by Staudinger
(1871, p. xxxvii) and ‘64. Hyale . . . ab. (an hibr?) Sareptensis’ (1871, p. 5). The
numbering of the species in the text of Staudinger’s catalogue (1871, p. 5) indicates
that the linking with C. erate (Esper, [1805]) in the list of the new designations
(p. xxxvii) was a lapsus. Staudinger’s name ‘sareptensis’ was unavailable from its first
publication in 1871 because of the use of the term ‘ab’. It is therefore of
infrasubspecific status (see Article 45.6.2 of the Code – Determination of infrasubspecific rank of the names). Staudinger never applied the name ‘sareptensis’ to a
population or a group of populations.
4. Kirby’s (1872, pp. xlv-xlvi) erroneous application of the name hyale Linnaeus,
1758 to the orange species currently known as Colias croceus (Geoffroy, 1785) had an
unforeseen side effect, for the yellow species that is currently known as C. hyale would
have been left without a valid name of its own. Having searched the literature for
applicable names Kirby suggested that ‘The only name which I can find for Hyale
[of authors] . . . is Sareptensis, applied by Staudinger . . . to a variety. It is a very
inappropriate name . . . but unless all the misnomers in Entomology are to be
rejected, I do not think we can avoid adopting it’. Kirby’s use of ‘sareptensis’ did not
make the name available, because he clearly misidentified Staudinger’s ‘sareptensis’
(he never saw Staudinger’s specimens). He thought that Staudinger’s name represented his conception of ‘the hyale of authors’, but this is wrong. Kirby’s intention
was to find a new name for the species known to other authors as C. hyale, but
Staudinger used the name sareptensis in reality for yellow spotted specimens of
C. erate and possibly also for the species currently known as C. alfacariensis.
5. Alphéraky (1875, pp. 153–154) published the name sareptensis in the combination
‘Colias Hyale L. var. Sareptensis’. The true status of Alphéraky’s sareptensis is rather
confused as he used Staudinger’s name but then described something different to what
Staudinger had apparently intended. He inferred that Staudinger considered sareptensis to be a hybrid between C. hyale and C. erate, and indeed indicated that he had seen
such hybrids himself. He then said: ‘However, such specimens seem to me very
different from the constant variety (‘‘postoyannoe vidoizmenenie’’) var. Sareptensis
Stgr., which I saw in Dr. Staudinger’s collection, and which I collect every year near
Taganrog’. The Russian ‘vidoizmenenie’ is an archaic word used in Russian scientific
publications in the 19th century. In those days the term ‘vid’ corresponded with the
category species, and ‘vidoizmenenie’ had a meaning almost identical to what is now
known as a subspecies. The term ‘vid’ means the species and ‘vidoizmenenie’ means a
subordinate category. The subspecies concept was not then fully developed; thus
108
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
different subspecies did not have to be allopatric and, in theory, two ‘vidoizmenenie’
(subspecies) could occur together. After describing the insect, he also said: ‘. . . this
form is very common and belongs to the type Hyale . . . [the C. hyale group of species]’
and: ‘I propose to consider var. Sareptensis Stgr. not as an individual form but a
permanent form characteristic of southern and south-eastern Russia’. This description
makes the name available at the subspecific rank (see Article 45.6.4 of the Code).
6. The status of sareptensis Alphéraky is further confused by his subsequent
writings on the subject. In 1881 (Alphéraky, 1881, pp. 365–366) he first mentioned the
specimen he received from Staudinger and says that it is one of the hybrid
individuals. He eventually admitted that he didn’t know what to do with the name:
‘Now I don’t know whether the name var. Sareptensis Stgr. or ab. Sareptensis Stgr.
should be adopted, or to which form it should be applied’. Then, in 1908 (Alphéraky,
1908, p. 564), he decided that the name should be applied to the hybrids: ‘Under
the name sareptensis in my first list I said that larger specimens with a brighter
yellow wing colour etc. fly at Taganrog. In this I was clearly mistaken, however the
mistake was not mine but rather Staudinger’s’. He also accepted Krulikowsky’s
C. meridionalis (see para. 12 below) as the name to be applied to the new entity:
‘L.K. Krulikowsky has now perfectly reasonably called these latter: var. meridionalis’, and referred to it as such throughout the rest of the work. However, the fact that
he changed his mind in 1908 does not affect the status of the taxon as inferred from
the original description (Alphéraky, 1875).
7. Alphéraky (1875, pp. 153–154) was clearly convinced that there were three
different kinds of Colias flying together near Taganrog, i.e. C. hyale, C. erate (he
often found these two species in copula and they produced hybrids) and ‘var.
Sareptensis’. He mentioned that Staudinger thought that his specimens could be
hybrids. What Alphéraky considered these hybrids to be can be found in the work
about the Lepidoptera of Kouldja (Alphéraky, 1881, pp. 365–366): ‘But that
[specimen] which I once received under this name from Dr. Staudinger is not a
constant form, but a hybrid between C. Erate Esp. and Hyale L. . . . The hybrid
specimens are generally the same colour as Erate, but the black border is spotted with
yellow’. (Examination of the surviving Staudinger ‘types’ of ‘sareptensis’ proves these
‘hybrids’ to be C. erate with fenestrated forewing borders). As stated above,
Staudinger’s unavailable ‘sareptensis’ probably consisted of two different species, i.e.
C. alfacariensis and C. erate. Alphéraky regarded his ‘var. Sareptensis’ as being
closely related to C. hyale and mentioned the main identifying feature several times,
e.g. the ‘wing colour [of the male] is much more yellow’ (Alphéraky, 1875,
pp. 153–154), the ‘warm yellow colour of the male’ (Alphéraky, 1881, pp. 365–366),
or a ‘brighter yellow wing colour’ (Alphéraky, 1908, p. 564). He examined between
2,000 and 3,000 specimens from Taganrog (Alphéraky, 1881); inspection of such a
large series was surely the reason why he was able to separate the ‘var. Sareptensis’
from the normal C. hyale and the so-called hybrids. Alphéraky (1875, pp. 153–154)
made the name sareptensis available by the fact that he used it as valid, also giving
indications as to how to identify his ‘var. Sareptensis’. We have examined part of
Alphéraky’s own series of ‘var. Sareptensis’ in St. Petersburg and can confirm that
they are C. alfacariensis (but see the lectotype designation in para. 14 below). All of
this leaves little doubt that his ‘var. Sareptensis’ is the species that we now know as
C. alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
109
8. The name sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875 is considered available and applicable in
the combination Colias sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875. It is the oldest available name
for the taxon, being a senior subjective synonym of Colias alfacariensis remota
Reissinger, 1989 from Volsk (south-western Russia). The name sareptensis cannot be
suppressed without a decision by the Commission because it was treated as a valid
species-group name after 1899 (e.g. Tuzov et al., 1997, p. 172), albeit under the wrong
authorship (see Article 23.9.1 of the Code – Reversal of Precedence).
9. Butler (1880, p. 409) elevated Staudinger’s unavailable ‘sareptensis’ to specific
status, treating it as ‘Colias sareptensis’. He considered it as a separate species
from C. erate, but his C. sareptensis can only be C. erate as it is now known that no
other similar species of Colias are found in Afghanistan. As a result of the lectotype designation for sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875 (see para. 14 below), Butler’s
C. sareptensis must be regarded as a subsequent misidentification.
10. The name alba was originally published as ‘Colias Hyale var.[ietas] alba’ by
Bienert (1870, p. 28) for specimens from Nishapur (north-western Iran); however, he
failed to provide any description, definition or indication of characters purported to
differentiate the taxon, other than that which is implicit in the descriptive name. That,
by itself, cannot make the name available. Subsequently alba was used as a valid
name by Rühl (1893, p. 156), who briefly described Colias hyale ‘var. alba Bien.[ert]’
from Nischapur as a geographical variety. We have not found any older use of the
name; therefore we credit it to Rühl.
11. Reissinger (1989, p. 131) claimed that alba Rühl, 1893 is a junior homonym,
thinking that the name was preoccupied by ‘alba’ Haworth, 1802, but Haworth’s
‘alba’ (Haworth, 1802, p. 2) is unavailable; in fact it is not a scientific name at all
but merely a descriptive Latin term. The listings of Bridges (1988, Annotations
No. 3.7) also provoked confusion in this respect, making Staudinger’s (1871,
p. 6) ‘alba’ appear as if it were available; but it is nothing more than an
infrasubspecific form name applied to white females of Colias myrmidone (Esper,
[1781]), so it can be ignored. Furthermore, the name ‘alba’ is in widespread popular
usage as applied to the white female form of many species of Colias worldwide. The
name Colias alba Rühl, 1893 was certainly treated as an available and valid species
group name by Tutt (1896, p. 254), Le Cerf (1913, p. 30) and Berger & Fontaine
(1948, p. 108). The name alba Rühl, 1893 is a senior subjective synonym of
C. alfacariensis hyrcanica Reissinger, 1989 from northern Iran. The name alba Rühl,
1893 cannot be suppressed without a decision by the Commission because it was
treated as a valid species group name after 1899 as stated above (see Article 23.9.1 of
the Code).
12. In 1903 Krulikowsky introduced the name meridionalis in the combination
‘C. hyale . . . var. meridionalis mihi (nomen novum)’. Krulikowsky (1903, p. 302)
stated that there were two ‘forms’ occurring under the name ‘sareptensis’ Staudinger;
one was a large and intensively coloured ‘race’ of C. hyale, the other one probably a
hybrid between C. hyale and C. erate. This is what Alphéraky (1881, pp. 365–366)
wrote, and Krulikowsky (1903) clearly referred to this work. Subsequently he went
on to say that the name ‘sareptensis’ should be restricted to the hybrid, and for the
southern [Russian] ‘race’ of hyale he proposed the new name meridionalis.
13. To understand the meaning of Krulikowsky’s meridionalis it is necessary to
read the works of Alphéraky (1875, 1881). Krulikowsky did not cite the earlier work
110
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
of Alphéraky from 1875. Alphéraky (1881, pp. 365–366) wrote that the specimens
from Taganrog described by him as ‘var. Sareptensis’ are different to the single
specimen that he received under the same name from Staudinger. He believed that the
Staudinger specimen is a hybrid between C. erate and C. hyale, and he did not ‘know
whether the name ‘‘var. Sareptensis Stgr.’’ or ‘‘ab. Sareptensis Stgr.’’ should be
adopted, or to which form it should be applied’. This is why Krulikowsky proposed
the new name meridionalis for the southern Russian ‘hyale’ (sareptensis sensu
Alphéraky, 1875), under the mistaken assumption that the name sareptensis was only
applicable to Staudinger’s so-called hybrids. But what Alphéraky (1875, pp. 153–154)
described under ‘var. Sareptensis’ from Taganrog are specimens of C. alfacariensis,
not C. hyale. The name meridionalis is considered invalid as a junior objective
synonym of C. sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875 (see para. 14 below), and also a
senior subjective synonym of C. alfacariensis remota Reissinger, 1989 from Volsk
(south-western Russia).
14. It is not known what happened to Bienert’s collection; his material is not
mentioned in Horn et al. (1990). Bienert was supported by Staudinger in his work on
the Persian Lepidoptera, but no syntypes have been found in the Staudinger
collection in Berlin (MNHU). Therefore Bienert’s original specimens of alba are
presumed to be lost. The name-bearing specimens of ‘sareptensis’ in the Staudinger
collection (MNHU, Berlin) currently comprise four males and one deep yellow
female of Colias erate. According to Alphéraky (1908, p. 564) there were two different
species under the name ‘sareptensis’ in Staudinger’s collection; one the so-called
hybrid, and the other the ‘bright yellow south-Russian C. hyale’ (sareptensis sensu
Alphéraky, 1875). Alphéraky had the opportunity to examine Staudinger’s collection
personally, as he was in Dresden between 1871 and 1873 where he worked under
Staudinger’s supervision (Tuzov et al., 1997, p. 62). It is likely that Alphéraky found
two different species under ‘sareptensis’ in the name-bearing series, and it is therefore
probable that the original series was more extensive than what remains now in the
Staudinger collection. For the stability of zoological nomenclature it is important to
have the name-bearing type of C. sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875 fixed by a lectotype
designation. To resolve any confusion about the identification of the taxon, a
lectotype is herewith designated from a syntypic Alphéraky specimen that clearly
corresponds with what Alphéraky described, i.e. a specimen of the species currently
known as C. alfacariensis. To prevent confusion, the lectotype of C. sareptensis is also
designated as lectotype of C. meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903. Lectotype (fig. 1 on
page 111): the syntypic male specimen selected as the lectotype of C. sareptensis and
C. meridionalis is a fresh specimen that fits Alphéraky’s (1875) description. The wings
are of a ‘warm yellow colour’ (Alphéraky, 1881, pp. 365–366), and the individual is
not as large (fore wing length: 20.35 mm) as most C. hyale, as Alphéraky (1875)
stated. The size of the Alphéraky specimens is variable, so this is only an average
feature. The wing shape is more rounded than in the other syntypic males. The
hindwing discal spot is of a deep orange colour, a typical feature in C. alfacariensis.
Also the extension of the black basal shading on the forewing is a typical feature for
C. alfacariensis. The lectotype is set on a steel pin; the label data are: [printed label
with crown] Колл.[екция] Вел.[икого] Князя Николая
[Coll. Grand
Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich] // [small black bordered label in Alphéraky’s hand]
Taganrog / IV 1874. [and printed on the underside] Alph. // [printed red label]
Михайловича
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
111
Fig. 1. Lectotype of Colias hyale sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875. Upperside (left) and underside (right). Fore
wing length: 20.35 mm.
Lectotype / Colias hyale var. sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875/ Trudy Russ. ent. Obshch.
8: 153–154 / designated by J. Grieshuber, R. Worthy & G. Lamas, 2006 // [printed red
label] Lectotype / Colias hyale var. meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903 / Revue Russe Ent.
3(5): 302 / designated by J. Grieshuber, R. Worthy & G. Lamas, 2006. Depository:
ZISP (St. Petersburg). Paralectotypes: Each syntypic specimen will be provided with
a printed red label: Paralectotype / Colias hyale var. sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875/
Trudy Russ. ent. Obshch. 8: 153–154 / designated by J. Grieshuber, R. Worthy &
G. Lamas, 2006. Furthermore, each specimen, except for the Staudinger syntypes,
will be provided with a printed red label reading: Paralectotype / Colias hyale var.
meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903 / Revue Russe Ent. 3(5): 302 / designated by
J. Grieshuber, R. Worthy & G. Lamas, 2006. A list of all syntypes so far identified,
and material excluded from the type series, along with their complete data has been
sent to, and is held by, the Commission Secretariat.
15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as
published in the trinomen Colias hyale alfacariensis, precedence over the names
sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale
sareptensis, and alba Rühl, 1893, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale
alba, and meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903, as published in the trinomen Colias
hyale meridionalis, whenever it and any of the other three are considered to be
synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale
sareptensis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the
name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale
alfacariensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) alba Rühl, 1893, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alba, with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name alfacariensis
Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alfacariensis,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
112
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
(c) meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale
meridionalis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over
the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias
hyale alfacariensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(3) to emend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for
alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alfacariensis, to record that it is to be given precedence over sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875,
as published in the trinomen Colias hyale sareptensis, alba Rühl, 1893, as
published in the trinomen Colias hyale alba, and meridionalis Krulikowsky,
1903, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale meridionalis, whenever it and
either of the other three names are considered to be synonyms.
References
Alphéraky, S.N. 1875–1878. Cheshuekrylyya (Lepidoptera) okrestnostei Taganroga [The
Butterflies (Lepidoptera) of the environs of Taganrog (in Russian)]. Trudy Russkago
Entomologicheskago obshchestva, 8: 150–226 (1875); 10: 35–53 (1876); 11: 45–50 (1878).
Alphéraky, S.N. 1881–1883. Lépidoptères du district de Kouldjà et des montagnes environnantes. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossica, 16: 334–435, (1881); 17: 15–103 (1882),
156–227 (1883).
Alphéraky, S.N. 1908. Cheshuekryle Okrenestei Taganroga [The Butterflies of the environs of
Taganrog (in Russian)]. Supplément III. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossica, 38:
558–618.
Berger, L.A. 1945a. Espèce nouvelle pour la Science. Lambillionea, 44(1/12): 9–10.
Berger, L.A. 1945b. Rapport d’assemblée mensuelle du 3 février 1945. Bulletin et Annales de la
Société Royale Entomologique de Belgique, 81: 33–34.
Berger, L.A. & Fontaine, M. 1947–1948. Une espèce méconnue du genre Colias F. Lambillionea, 47(11–12): 91–98 (1947); 48(1–2): 12–15, (3–4): 21–24, (11–12): 90–110 (1948).
Bienert, T. 1870. Lepidopterologische Ergebnisse einer Reise in Persien in den Jahren 1858 und
1859. 56 pp. C.W. Vollrath, Leipzig.
Bridges, C.A. 1988. Catalogue of Papilionidae & Pieridae (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). 721 pp.
in various paginations. Privately published, Urbana, Illinois.
Butler, A.G. 1880. On a collection of Lepidoptera from Candahar. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London, 1880: 403–415.
Haworth, A.H. 1802. Prodromus Lepidopterorum Britannicorum. A Concise Catalogue of British
Lepidopterous Insects, with the Times and Places of Appearance in the Winged State. vi, 39,
6 pp. J. Parsler, London (Facsimile reprint, 1951).
Horn, W., Kahle, I., Friese, G. & Gaedike, R. 1990. Collectiones entomologicae. Ein
Kompendium über den Verbleib entomologischer Sammlungen der Welt bis 1960. Part I,
A-K: 1–220; Part II, L-Z: 221–573. Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der
Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Berlin.
Kirby, W.F. 1872. Synonymic Notes on Lepidoptera. Proceedings of the Entomological Society
of London, 19: xliii-xlvi.
Krulikowsky, L.K. 1903. Notes pour servir à l’étude des Lépidoptères des la Sibèrie occidentale
et du Semiretshje (in Russian). Revue Russe d’Entomologie, 3(5): 300–303.
Le Cerf, F. 1913. Contribution à la faune lépidoptèrologique de la Perse (Catalogue des
Rhopalocères). Annales d’Histoire Naturelle. (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse), II,
Ent.(10): vii, 88 pp.
Reissinger, E.J. 1989. Die geographisch-subspezifische Gliederung von Colias alfacariensis
Ribbe, 1905 unter Berücksichtigung der Migrationsverhältnisse (Lepidoptera, Pieridae).
3. Fortsetzung und Schluss. Neue Entomologische Nachrichten, 26: 101–351.
Ribbe, C. 1905. Einige neue Formen von Schmetterlingen aus Andalusien. Societas
Entomologica, 20(18): 137–138.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
113
Rühl, F. 1892–1893. Die palaearktischen Grossschmetterlinge und ihre Naturgeschichte. 1. Band
Tagfalter: pp. 1–384. (pp. 385–857 continued by A. Heyne). Ernst Heyne, Leipzig.
Staudinger, O. 1871. Pp. xvi-xxxvii, 1–200, 347–382, 415–424 in Staudinger, O. & Wocke, M.,
Catalog der Lepidopteren des europaeischen Faunengebiets, I: Macrolepidoptera. (2nd
edition). Staudinger, Burdach, Dresden.
Tutt, J.W. 1896. British butterflies, being a popular handbook for young students and collectors.
469 pp., 9 pls., 45 figs. George Gill & Sons, London.
Tuzov, V.K., Bogdanov, P.V., Devyatkin, A.L., Kaabak, L.V., Korolev, V.A., Murzin, V.S.,
Samodurov, G.D. & Tarasov, E.A. 1997. Guide to the butterflies of Russia and adjacent
territories (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Volume 1, Hesperiidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae,
Satyridae. 480 pp., 79 pls. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow.
Whitebread, S.E., Rezbanyai-Rezer, L. & Geiger, H. 1988. Case 2617. Colias alfacariensis
Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed availability as a senior synonym of ‘Colias
australis Verity, 1911’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 45(1): 29–32.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 62: 2
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).