Taxonomic review finds Linnaeus butterfly lectotype for Papilio hermione remains valid

A historical taxonomic review of butterfly type material associated with Linnaeus’ 1764 Museum Ludovicae Ulrikae concludes that the London specimen designated in 1977 as the lectotype of Papilio hermione remains valid because challengers have not demonstrated that it was excluded from the original type series. The review also argues that the proposed neotype designation for the name cannot stand under the nomenclatural rules.

The study examines how Linnaeus’ catalogue related to butterflies preserved in the private museum of Queen Lovisa Ulrika of Sweden. In the volume’s preface, Linnaeus described it as a catalogue of the insects and “shells” in the queen’s collection, with Carl Alexander Clerck responsible for illustrating part of the Lepidoptera. The work listed 159 butterfly species: 123, or 77 percent, had been described in the tenth edition of Systema Naturae in 1758; six, or 4 percent, in Centuria Insectorum in 1763; and 30, or 19 percent, were published as new.

After the queen’s death in 1782, King Gustav IV Adolf bequeathed her collection to Uppsala University in 1803. Because the collection was held at the Royal Palace of Drottningholm before that transfer, material supporting the 30 newly described names would ordinarily be expected to have remained there, with surviving specimens eventually housed in the Zoology Section of the Museum of Evolution of Uppsala University. The historical record, however, shows that the collection’s contents and documentation were incomplete and had changed over time.

Carl Peter Thunberg’s 1804 catalogue recorded material for 84 of the 159 species, while Wallin’s later survey found 85. The one-species difference was attributed to specimens of “panthous” and “patroclus” that Wallin found in the material from Gustav IV Adolf’s bequest but that Thunberg appears to have overlooked. Separately, Thunberg had recorded at least one individual of “alimena” that was no longer present in the collection in the early twentieth century.

Clerck’s published Icones Insectorum rariorum provided illustrations of 78 species, including 26 not recorded by Thunberg or Wallin. Another 17 species appeared in an unpublished third section, eight of which were described as lost. Some drawings remained uncoloured because Clerck died in 1765 at age 55. Six additional unpublished plates are available through the Gallica website, while all the unpublished drawings are preserved at the Center for History of Science of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm.

Among the 30 butterflies described as new by Linnaeus, only five had been recorded as present by Thunberg, Aurivillius or Wallin, and type material for only four survives in Uppsala. The review uses historical catalogues, published and unpublished illustrations, and photographs of surviving specimens to reassess these losses. Direct comparisons of Clerck’s images with lectotypes of Papilio cassus, P. clytus, P. niso, P. protumnus and P. tulbaghia showed agreement in specimen positioning and wing details, while also indicating that some features were added only during colouring. The name protumnus was written “prolumnus” both on the lectotype’s pin label and in the caption of Clerck’s unpublished illustration.

Linnaeus’ collections, library, manuscripts and correspondence passed to his son after his death in 1778 and were offered for sale in 1783. Sir Joseph Banks declined the purchase but encouraged James Edward Smith to acquire the material. With financial backing of 1,000 guineas from his father, Smith brought the collection to London in 1784 and housed it at the Linnean Society of London, which he co-founded in 1788. The authors infer that some specimens from the queen’s museum may have entered Linnaeus’ holdings and subsequently reached London with Smith’s collection. They present this as a historical inference from incomplete records, not demonstrated provenance for every specimen.

Against this background, Honey and Scoble’s 2001 review designated 152 lectotypes, 101 of them for species described in Linnaeus’ 1764 volume. These specimens are held in Uppsala or London. Although the rationale was not stated explicitly, the designations appear to have assumed that some original material might already have been in Linnaeus’ collection or might inadvertently have remained among the materials purchased by Smith. Most of those designations have not been seriously challenged. The major exception concerns Papilio hermione, for which Otakar Kudrna designated a London specimen as lectotype in 1977, affecting the name of the butterfly otherwise known as Hipparchia alcyone.

Later authors sought to restore the earlier use of alcyone. Their arguments were that labels without collection data have no nomenclatural status, Linnaeus had treated hermione as a synonym of P. fagi, and no credible evidence showed that any London Hipparchia specimen came from the queen’s collection. Russell and Vane-Wright consequently designated a Natural History Museum specimen as neotype of both Papilio fagi and P. hermione. The review responds that the first position could undermine most historical lectotypes, while the second overlooks Linnaeus’ inconsistent synonymies and references; for hermione, he cited illustrations of Hipparchia fidia and Brintesia circe. Under Article 74 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the challenger must demonstrate that a designated lectotype was not part of the original type series. Because the review reports no such demonstration for the P. hermione lectotype, it treats that designation as valid and the proposed neotype as invalid. The authors state that restoring the pre-1977 usage of P. alcyone would require an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature asking it to set aside the previous designation and designate a neotype.

Subject of Research: Taxonomic review of Linnaeus’ 1764 butterfly type materials and the Papilio hermione lectotype

Article Title: On Linnaeus’ (1764) butterfly type materials missing from the Museum of Evolution of Uppsala University (Section of Zoology) and the case of Papilio hermione

Article References: Balletto, E., Barbero, F., Bonelli, S., Casacci, L. P., & Dapporto, L. (2024). On Linnaeus’ (1764) butterfly type materials missing from the Museum of Evolution of Uppsala University (Section of Zoology) and the case of Papilio hermione. Nota Lepidopterologica, 47, 163-170. https://doi.org/10.3897/nl.47.127357

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/nl.47.127357

Keywords: Linnaean taxonomy, butterfly type specimens, Papilio hermione, lectotypes, Museum Ludovicae Ulrikae, Uppsala University, Linnean Society of London, nomenclatural rules, Carl Alexander Clerck, Linnaeus, butterfly, type