Otites Latreille, 1804

Otites Latreille, 1804 View in CoL

Otites Latreille, 1804: 196 View in CoL .

Type species: Musca porcus Latreille, 1804: 196 (as “ Musca porcus (Bosc) ”), by monotypy.

Otites View in CoL : Latreille, 1805: 383.

Blainvillia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830: 713 View in CoL .

Type-species: Blainvillia formosa Robineau-Desvoidy 1830 (by subsequent designation of Hennig, 1939: 23).

The generic concept of Otites strongly depends on its name-bearing type species. Previous workers have generally accepted the statement (actually a misstatement) of Hennig (1939) that Musca porcus Latreille, 1804 is a nomen nudum. Formally, however, the brief diagnosis provided for the genus automatically applies to the only species included, independently from the otherwise uninformative diagnosis. According to Article 67.7 (ICZN, 1999), the error in attribution of authorship to Bosc is immaterial. We therefore consider the designation of Musca porcus by monotypy to be valid with the authorship of Latreille, 1804.

Thompson & Pont (1993) also consider Musca porcus an available name.

This designation of the type species is valid according to Article 61.1.3. (ICZN, 1999): “once fixed, name-bearing types are stable… the name-bearing type … is not subject to change except… as provided in the Article 70.3.2…”

Sabrosky (1999: 228) also gives “ O. porca Latreille 1804 (mon.; as “ Musca porcus Bosc ,” a manuscript name there validated by Latreille)” as the type of Otites Latreille 1804 , and notes that “ Otites was sometimes credited to Latreille (1805: 383), where it appeared to be monobasic for O. elegans Latreille , under which was cited Musca formosa Panzer 1798 (preocc. Scopoli 1763). Soós (1984 c: 47, 48) rejected both porca and elegans, but we believe that Latreille established both names”.

Reference to Otites elegans Latreille, 1805 as the type of the genus is incorrect, as that species was not originally included in the genus Otites by Latreille (1804).

The following is for the purpose of clarifying the taxonomic status of the type species of the genus Otites , and the species closely related to it which are widespread in Western and Central Europe , within the framework of a continuing taxonomic revision of the genus ( Kameneva & Korneyev, in prep.) .

We have come at the conclusion that the type specimens of Musca porcus are lost, as they were not found in the collection of MNHNP by VAK after a careful analysis of all the specimens having Bosc’s handwritten labels. This makes the designation of a neotype necessary.

The only other designation of a type species for the nominal genera synonymized with Otites which we consider below is the case of Blainvillia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 , since this also involves several nominal species closely related to Musca porcus .

Hennig (1939: 23) fixed one of the two included species, Blainvillia formosa , as the type species of that nominal genus. Robineau-Desvoidy (1830: 713) gave the latter name in a synonymy: “ Blainvillia formosa R.-D. [=] Otites formosa Latr. ”

The type specimens of the other included species, Blainvillia jucunda , are also considered lost, as they were not found by VAK after searching among the specimens remaining from Robineau-Desvoidy’s material in the collection of MNHNP.

For this reason, we herewith fix the concept of the type species of Otites by a neotype designation for both Musca porcus and Blainvillia jucunda .

We do not propose to consider the nomenclature of the other nominal genera assigned to Otites as junior subjective synonyms here, preferring to leave this task for the forthcoming revision of the genus.