Phyllocnistis saligna ( Zeller, 1839 )

Identity of Phyllocnistis saligna ( Zeller, 1839) View in CoL

In his description Zeller (1839) stated: «Bei Berlin, Gl[ogau] und Fr[ankfurt/Oder] im Frühjahr und Herbst um Weiden und Pappeln, deren Blätter die Raupe miniert, an warmen, stillen Abenden äusserst gemein». It is obvious that Zeller in this case did not recognize that the species on «Pappeln» ( Populus L.) was not the same as the one(s) on «Weiden» ( Salix L.). None of the Populus feeders have the longitudinal fascia in the forewing. In NHMUK two syntypes are present. One syntype is without collecting data, the other ( Figure 1 View FIGURES 1–5 ) (with one forewing missing) is labelled «Gross Glogau/ SILESIA/ J. 1839?/, Zeller Coll» ( Figure 2 View FIGURES 1–5 ). The labels on this syntype were added after the Zeller collection had been transferred to London (Heckford pers. comm.). On the website Global Taxonomic Database of Gracillariidae ( De Prins & De Prins 2006 –2022) the syntype from Glogau is referred to as the holotype. This is incorrect because Zeller in his description did not select a holotype. All type specimens are syntypes. The syntype labelled «Glogau» is a potential lectotype. It has only one forewing, but this wing is in good condition. In our opinion the forewing pattern of this saligna syntype ( Figure 1 View FIGURES 1–5 ) is most similar to that of P. ramulicola ( Figure 5 View FIGURES 1–5 ). The syntype labelled « Phyllocnistis saligna var. b» ( Figure 3 View FIGURES 1–5 ) is not conspecific with the other syntype. It has a label ( Figure 4 View FIGURES 1–5 ) referring to a publication in 1848 ( Zeller 1848). A specimen mentioned in the 1848 paper could still be a syntype if it was collected before 1839. It lacks data, but can be considered as a syntype and a candidate for lectotype designation. Although it cannot be proved for certain, we consider it most likely that this syntype is identical with the cluster in BOLD with BIN: BOLD:AAQ1589. If the identity of the name saligna is fixed to this syntype (and the species with BIN: BOLD:AAQ1589) it will serve stability and the name Ph. ramulicola will not be threatened. Also, the usual interpretation of the name Ph. asiatica (BIN: BOLD:AAL5482) will not be threatened. Because Zeller described saligna from an unspecified number of specimens there is still a chance that additional syntypes will turn up. In this situation we prefer not to select a lectotype, but simply continue current usage of the names involved. This means that we propose to apply the name saligna for the species with BIN: BOLD:AAQ1589.

There exist a few synonyms of Phyllocnistis saligna in the literature ( De Prins & De Prins 2006 –2020). These names could potentially represent older names for taxa in the complex and are discussed below.

Opostega salignatella Bruand, 1851 and [ Phyllocnistis ] salignella Herrich-Schäffer, 1855 are unjustified emendations of Zeller’s name, saligna ( De Prins & De Prins 2006 –2020).

[ Tinea ] cerasifoliella Hübner, 1796 was stated by Stainton (1849) to differ from Ph. saligna by the lack «of the double brown line proceeding from the base of the wings». Thus, it cannot be conspecific with any species of the Phyllocnistis saligna complex which all have a longitudinal fascia from the base of the wing.

[ Opostega View in CoL ] lugdunensella Bruand, 1858 was stated by the author to differ from Ph. saligna View in CoL in having much smaller eye caps («des cuillerons, mais tres petits») ( Bruand 1858). All species in the Phyllocnistis saligna View in CoL complex have eye caps of similar size, and this makes it unlikely that Bruand was describing specimens of the complex.