Doubts about the validity of the species name Hipparchia hermione (Linnaeus, 1764), it being associated with the two species Hipparchia alcyone ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775) and Hipparchia genava (Fruhstorfer, 1908) following the designation of a lectotype by Kudrna (1977) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Satyrinae) - First part -

Abstract

In 1977, Otakar Kudrna (*1939-†2021, obituary see Balletto and Leigheb, 2021) published his “Revision of the Genus Hipparchia”, where he classified all the known species and forms of this genus according to characters of wings, androconia, male genital armatures and further subjective criteria. Until today, Kudrna’s study is considered as the guideline of systematics of the genus Hipparchia. He selected there a lectotype specimen of a Rock Grayling male in the Linnaean collection. “Hipparchia hermione Linnaeus, 1764” is therefore, at the moment, the technically correct name to identify the species. The “International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature” (ICZN) has nothing to add at this point; it only comments on cases submitted to it in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Within the meaning of the present study and in accordance with Verity (1913), this damaged specimen without abdomen represents the same species as Ignaz Schiffermüller – allegedly the only author of the Vienna directory (see Kudrna and B., 2005, p. 5) – has described under H. alcyone from the Vienna region by referring to a coloured copper engraving published by Rösel von Rosenhof (1755). Kudrna’s “Revision” became the starting point of an extended scientific research activity during my free time containing, as a matter of priority, the examination of problem cases of systematics by checking the preimaginal characters of many rearing series from different sites. It turned out that a number of classifications proposed by Kudrna (1977) had to be reassessed as soon as characters of the pre-imaginal stages were available. The most complex case I have verified concerned the third European Grayling species which Leraut (1990) introduced under the name of Hipparchia genava (Fruhstorfer, 1908). Kudrna (1977) failed to separate this species from H. alcyone (D. & S., 1775). Throughout his life, he never agreed with Leraut’s opinion. In recent years, Kudrna had hoped that genetic examinations would make redundant every rearing attempt by amateur lepidopterists and furnish the proof that his opinion was the correct one. Since he never undertook any rearing experiments, his systematics were based only on prepared imagines being housed in museum collections. He saw himself as a person with the competency to decide within a few minutes upon complex questions of taxonomy and ignored completely the assessments of others. For verifying the effective rank of H. genava, I had to examine also the two most closely related species: Hipparchia fagi and H. alcyone by rearing them all ex ovo with material from several widely spaced sites. Already on finalising my rearing work of this group, it became apparent that Leraut (1990) had been on the absolutely right path by accepting a third Grayling species, within this group. For the first time, I published the results of my rearing attempts between 2002 and 2006 in several articles in the quarterly bulletin Linneana Belgica and I readily provided information on this case to interested colleagues. Over time only, I realized that the Rock Grayling I knew from the volume on butterflies (Diurna) by Forster and Wohlfahrt (1955) as from the guides by Higgins and Riley (1970-84) under the name of H. alcyone had become H. hermione, because of the lectotype designation by Kudrna (1977). A stony path was in front of me to substantiate the factual correctness of the view taken by Leraut (1990). Complex clarifications by Peter Russell furnished well-founded arguments on the complex scientific issue why the use of the name “hermione Linnaeus, 1764” should be rejected for the Rock Grayling previously known as H. alcyone.