Luciola, Laporte, 1833

Chapter 2. History of the type species of the genus Luciola View in CoL

The type species of the genus Luciola Laporte, 1833 ( Coleoptera , Lampyridae ) was introduced for the first time by Motschulsky (1853: 53) as being Luciola pedemontana Bonelli. This species, however, as correctly reported by Bouchard et al. (2024), is not a name available at the time of the description of the genus Luciola and cannot be selected as the type species ( ICZN 1999: Art. 67.2.1.). The species Luciola pedemontana Motschulsky had been correctly synonymized with Luciola italica ( Linnaeus, 1758) already in old works and world catalogs (e.g., Olivier 1902, 1907a, 1910; McDermott 1966). Based on this synonymization Kawashima et al. (2003), appear to be the first to correctly cite Luciola italica ( Linnaeus, 1758) as the type species of the genus Luciola . Fanti (2022)

52 subsequently was the first author, after almost 170 years, to clarify the name Luciola pedemontana sensu Bonelli and Motschulsky and the correct descriptor of Luciola pedemontana , which turned out to be Curtis, the latter which in reality is a different species from L. pedemontana Motschulsky. Based on Fanti (2022), Luciola pedemontana sensu Motschulsky ( Motschulsky 1854d) but also sensu Bonelli, is unequivocally Luciola italica ( Linnaeus, 1758) . Fanti (2022) therefore correctly designates this species in the original binomial ( ICZN 1999: Recommendation 67B.) Cantharis italica as the type species of the genus Luciola , reporting that it was Motschulsky who designated the type species of the genus, with the name (not available) Luciola pedemontana Bonelli. Kawashima et al. (2003) and Fanti (2022), therefore, simply followed and corrected the historical proposal made by Motschulsky. The proposal for the designation of the type species Luciola pedemontana made by Motschulsky (1853), which moreover had been considered valid for all these years ( McDermott 1964, 1966; Calder 1998; Ballantyne et al. 2019; etc.).

Desmarest (1860) designated Luciola italica Fabricius as the type species, but according to Bouchard et al. (2024), this is a misidentification, and the subsequent authors should fix the type species based on the recommendations of the International Code. In addition, all others subsequent fixations (e.g., Ballantyne & Lambkin 2006; Fu et al. 2012a, 2012b; Ballantyne & Lambkin 2013; Ballantyne et al. 2022. See list E) are misidentifications. In fact, all the authors cited in list “ E ” placed Luciola italica as the type species, but did so on the basis of a misidentification of the population present in Pisa. In fact, Ballantyne & Lambkin (2013) themselves say that Luciola italica is present in Pisa, Italy, when as can easily be deduced from the entire bibliography (e.g., Papi 1967, 1969; Mikšić 1969; Bagnoli et al. 1972) and based on what was confirmed by Fanti (2022: 186), in Pisa there is only Luciola pedemontana ([Curtis], 1843). This latter species, before of Fanti (2022), was known by the name Luciola lusitanica (Charpentier, 1825) .

Therefore, despite Bouchard et al. (2024: 303), Cantharis italica Linnaeus, 1758 (see D) as designated by Kawashima et al. (2003), Kazantsev (2010, 2011), and Fanti (2022), is unequivocally the type species, as these authors follow the Code, so any other future designation would clearly be invalid ( ICZN 1999: Art. 69.1.) and would be deterimental to taxonomic stability. The acts of Kawashima et al. (2003) and Fanti (2022), in fact, fully respect and satisfy, as we have seen, taxonomic stability and universality, which Bouchard et al. (2024) say is relevant, noting: “The discovery of type species fixations that are older than those currently accepted pose a threat to nomenclatural stability (an application to the Commission is necessary to address each problem)”.

Furthermore, it is also very noteworthy that in Laporte’s original description of the genus Luciola , the species L. italica has position 1 ( Laporte 1833: 146), and that L. italica is the only species of Luciola described in Linnaeus (1758: 400–401), and therefore the first of the genus ever described.

History of the type species of the genus Luciola (original citation, and author(s) with relative page), with my notes:

A

Type species: Luciola pedemontana Bonelli Motschulsky 1853 : (52), 53

NOTE: Unavailable name when originally included in Luciola View in CoL by Laporte ( Bouchard et al. 2024). However, it is nice to note that the name Luciola Pedemontana Bonelli View in CoL , although not yet described, was present in Laporte's (1833: 149 - position 12) original description work. In fact, the name circulated for some decades among various authors as if it were actually described, even if Bonelli's description (apparently) never reached us or science.

B

Type species: L. italica, Fabr.

Desmarest 1860: 14 [ Luciola italica View in CoL or Lampyris italica ?]

NOTE: Bouchard et al. (2024) say: “the species selected by E. Desmarest is a misidentification ( Cantharis italica Linnaeus, 1758 sensu Fabricius, 1775 = Lampyris lusitanica Charpentier, 1825 View in CoL ); accordingly, following the recommendations in Article 70.3 ( ICZN 1999 a), authors working on this issue will determine if the nominal species previously cited as the type by E. Desmarest or the taxonomic species actually involved should be fixed as the type species of Luciola Laporte View in CoL (L. Ballantyne, pers. comm. to P.B., 2023)”.

What was said by Bouchard et al. (2024) is not entirely correct, as after Fanti (2022), Lampyris italica sensu Fabricius is to be attributed to Luciola pedemontana ([Curtis], 1843) as the typical locality proposed by Fabricius himself (1775: 202) is Italy, and therefore it certainly cannot be Luciola lusitanica (Charpentier, 1825) View in CoL , which instead is a species from Portugal ( Fanti 2022). Furthermore, it is evident that the true type species intended by Desmarest remains rather uncertain to us today. In fact, Desmarest also attributed other well-known species such as Lampyris noctiluca View in CoL or Lamprohiza splendidula View in CoL to Fabricius ( Desmarest 1860: 13) and not to the correct descriptor: Linnaeus.

C

Type species: Luciola pedemontana Motsch., 1853

McDermott 1964: 43

Type species: Luciola pedemontana Motschulsky , designated by Motschulsky, 1853

53

McDermott 1966: 98

Type species: Luciola pedemontana Motschulsky, 1853 by subsequent designation, see Motschulsky, V. (1853). Lampyrides. Etud. Entomol. 1: 26–58 [52] Calder 1998: 178

Type species: Luciola pedemontana Mots. 1853

Ballantyne & Lambkin 2000: 21

Type species: Luciola pedemontana Motschulsky designated by Motschulsky 1853 Ballantyne & Lambkin 2013: 64

Type species: Luciola pedemontana Motschulsky designated by Motschulsky 1853 Ballantyne et al. 2019: 87

NOTE: Unavailable name when originally included in Luciola View in CoL by Laporte.

D

Type species: Lampyris italica Linné, 1767 . Notes: Type species of the genus Luciola View in CoL was designated by MOTSCHULSKY (1852) as Luciola pedemontana BONELLI : MOTSCHULSKY, 1854. Later, OLIVIER (1902 b) put it back to a variety of L. italica (LINNÉ, 1767) , and MCDERMOTT (1966) synonymized it with L. italica / Luciola italica (LINNÉ, 1767) View in CoL

Kawashima et al. 2003: 246, 247, 249 ( Figs. 1–2 View Fig View Fig )

Type species: Типовой вид Lampyris italica Linnaeus, 1767

Kazantsev 2010: 201, 203

Type species: Lampyris italica Linnaeus, 1767

Kazantsev 2011: 392

Type species: Cantharis italica Linnaeus, 1758 [= Luciola italica ( Linnaeus, 1758) View in CoL ]. Designata da Motschulsky, 1853: 53 (“ Luciola pedemontana Bonelli ”)

Fanti 2022: 169 (and taxonomic history of the name throughout the text, under the various species)

E

Type species: L. italica View in CoL ( = pedemontana ) Ballantyne & Lambkin 2006: 43

Type species: L. italica View in CoL

54

Ballantyne & Lambkin 2009: 24, 37, 108 Type species: Luciola italica View in CoL (L.)

Fu et al. 2012a: 22

Type species: L. italica View in CoL

Fu et al. 2012b: 24, 30

Type species: L. italica View in CoL (L) / L. italica View in CoL from Pisa, Italy / a population from Pisa of Luciola italica View in CoL , the type species ( Ballantyne and Lambkin 2000, 2001, 2006, 2009) / Our characterisation of the type species Luciola italica View in CoL is based on large numbers of a population of males and females from Pisa Italy, identified by Floriano Papi.

Ballantyne & Lambkin 2013: 5 (Abstract), 31, 66 and 126, 140

Type species: Luciola italica View in CoL (see Ballantyne & Lambkin 2013:70).

Ballantyne & Jusoh 2015: 1

Type species: L. italica View in CoL (L.)

Jusoh et al. 2021: 2 [type species referred to the work of Ballantyne et al. 2019]

Type species: Luciola italica ( Linnaeus, 1758) View in CoL

Ballantyne et al. 2022: 3, 42, 43

NOTE: Misidentifications (see text).

F

Type species: to be determined

Bouchard et al. 2024: 302–303

Type species: to be determined (see Bouchard et al. 2024).

Jusoh & Ballantyne 2024: 69

NOTE: Bouchard et al. (2024) summarize (partially, since Kawashima et al. 2003, for example, is not cited) the history of the type species, but they leave the type species to be determined. The type species is well known and had already been clarified in Kawashima et al. (2003) and Fanti (2022), authors who also respect the stability that has followed and remained unchanged over the course of almost 170 years. Furthermore, Bouchard et al. (2024) erroneously state that: “ Luciola pedemontana Bonelli ” (= Luciola pedemontana Curtis, 1846 )”, evidently taking this data from Fanti (2022). This, however, is different from what was state clearly and taxonomically rigorously by Fanti (2022).

G

Type species: The type species of the genus Luciola View in CoL , and the correct author for Luciola pedemontana , is addressed elsewhere (Ballantyne and Jusoh, in review). Ballantyne L, Jusoh WFA. in review. The type species of Luciola Laporte 1833 View in CoL ( Coleoptera View in CoL : Lampyridae View in CoL : Luciolinae View in CoL ).

Keller & Ballantyne 2023: 4, 5 (Literature Cited)