Attila:

Kindly see this link for a new combination of Pompilus lateritius:

http://www.gembloux.ulg.ac.be/entomoOld/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1611.pdf

Best

Syed

Dear Syed,

This is Pompilus lateritus TASCHENBERG, 1880 and NOT Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry, 1879.

Pompilus lateritus is preoccupied name by Mocsáry, one years earlier than Taschenberg 1880!

So, Taschenberg can not be put into new combination?

See 1879 and 1880' Taschenberg versus Mocsáry????

Your opinion?

Dear All,

Please, read my question carefully. I don't wnat to ask anything about Pompilus lateritius TASCHENBERG. I would like to be clear the status of Pompilus lateritius MOCSÁRY!

Taschenberg is PREOCCUPIED NAME, therefore no need to put in any new combination. 

Attila:

I had no access to the original publication of MOCSARY and had not involved in the intricacies of Nomenclature. I had just spotted a recent publication with a proposal of New Combination and communicated the same to you.

Best

Syed

Hi Attila.

As I've very few knowledge about Pompilidae I forwarded your question to Raymond Wahis. The short answer is that P.lateritius Mocsary 1879 (nec Taschenberg, 1880) is a synonym of Arachnotheutes rufithorax (Costa, 1887). The full, detailed and translated answer is in the attached file.

Raymond would be very pleased to know why you need these data. What can I forward back to him?

Dear Rousse,

Raymond know this, and I am still waiting his short biography (not bibliography) it is historical work on the Carpathian Basin. (History of Aculeata research in the Carpathian Basin). Including the problematic species.... one of them is this. As far as I read the original description, Mocsáry and  Taschenberg worked independently so, Pompilus lateritus Mocsáry is not nec Taschenberg.

Finally, I am afraid, 1879 can not be synonym with the 8 years YOUNGER rufithorax species.

The logical step would be Arachnotheutes rufithorax MOCSÁRY ?

I need to check the holotype (if it is there) in the Budapest Museum. Hope Móczár correctly identified. 

Sorry, I need to correct:

The logical step would be Arachnotheutes lateritius MOCSÁRY ?

László Móczárt did this identification in Pompilidae part of Fauna Hungariae.

Dear Pascal,

Please, find the original publication of Sándor Mocsáry.

http://epa.oszk.hu/02300/02370/00009/pdf/EPA02370_termszetrajzif1879vol3_02-03_089-156.pdf

IT IS NOT NEC TASCHENBERG.

Pompilus lateritius was captured by Mocsáry himself in 1876, on  Gellért Hill in Budapest.

So, Pompilus lateritius Mocsary has advance to Taschenberg (1879 vs. 1880) and also with Costa (1879 versus 1882). Therefore Pompilus lateritius Mocsary should be valid?

Dear Syed,

"I had no access to the original publication of MOCSARY "

Please, find it here:

http://epa.oszk.hu/02300/02370/00009/pdf/EPA02370_termszetrajzif1879vol3_02-03_089-156.pdf

Waiting your kind opinion on this nomenclatural issue.

Thanks for your efforts. 

Attila

Attlia:

Trusting your judgement that P. lateritius Mocsary, 1979 is not identical with P. lateritius Taschenberg, 1880, the oldest name is valid and available. Unfortunately, the work of Mocsary which you sent cannot be translated. I wonder if Taschenberg (1880) mentioned the work of Mocsary.Therefore, P. lateritius Taschenberg (1880) is a junior primary homonym, and in my opinion cannot be used for new combinations.

You are advised to further discuss this matter with Raymond Wahis, who could provide some useful insights. 

Best

Syed

Hi Attila

Have you a direct contact to Raymond? I'm sure he's the best placed reference to discuss your answers with you.

Yes, but instead of his biography (because he wrote 2 papers on the Pompilid fauna of Yugoslavia which is part of the Varpathian Basin (only north) he sent his bibliograpy. Probably he is too olda or there is  language problem? But since then,  I did not received any answer. Anybody is good for this issue who is familiar with ICZN. 

Unfortunately László Móczár died las year (in his age of 101), bugt anyhow, in worst case I will check the type myself. 

Dear Syed,1876

THANK YOU SO MUCH. Probably this is the good solution :)

For your kind information. Mocsáry and Taschenberg worked independently becasue Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry was collected himself  by Sándor (Alexander) Mocsáry from Gellért Hill in Budapest in 1876.

The best,: I will check the Mocsáry type personally. If László Móczár identified it correctly than the valid name is Arachnotheutes lateritius Mocsáry, 1879.

And Pompilus lateritius Taschenberg, 1880 insted of different combinations,, would simply fall into homonym.

Hi Attila

I forwarded your request to Raymond. I've no direct contact but actually suspect there is a translation quiproquo in your exchanges.

Dear Pascal dear Syed,

(pls. forward also thi to Raymond).

I was this morning personally in the Budapest Museum.

The Mocsáry type Pompilus lateritus Mocsáry, 1879 is in good condition (perfect condition).

It is really identica, with rufithorax Costa 1882 !

The labels:

very old label

"Gellérth. coll 22/7" (probably original from Mocsáry.

second label old manuscript, likely not from Mocsáry, no date:

"Pompilus lateritius Mocs. rufithorax costa"

third labelwith red margyn :

"typus Pompilus lateritus Mocs. det.  Mocsáry" (no indication who designated, This is not original label, This is used in the 60-90's in the Museum.

fourth label: 

"Arachnotheutus rufithorax det. L.Móczár"

The specimen (future lectotype) confirms well to the original description.

The consequences:

1. Pompilus lateritius Taschenberg, 1880 is a junior homonym of Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry, 1879

2. Therefore, this combination: Agenioides lateritius (Taschneberg, 1880) (by Wahis in 2006) can not be applied, because we do not establish new combination for junior homonym names.

3. Pompilus rufithorax Costa, 1882 is a junior synonym of Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry, 1879

4. Pompilus lateritius Mocsáry is valid as Arachnotheutus lateritius (Mocsáry, 1879)

 5. Pompilus masrensis Priesner, 1955 is the valid name of Agenoides lateritius (Tasch., 1880) because lateritius Taschenberg fallen into homonimy!

Issue resolved?

Attila:

Great. Go in for publication of a short note.

Best

Syed

http://www.gembloux.ulg.ac.be/entomoOld/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/1611.pdf

Dear Japoshvili,

This is the second time that somebody put this Wahis link here! In this link,  there is no word on lateritius Mocsary.!This is why I called everybody's attention even  in my question: please do not put this link here! Thank you so much for accepting this. Greetings,

Attila