S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 61. (Budapest, 2000)

Leech by Nabokov deserves further study, both as to taxonomic status and nomenclatorial validity. This is because, upon examination of an original of Leech's text, p. 303 appears to offer the description of a new species repeating verbatim Grum-Grshimailo's description of aegina but on p. 404 gives a differential diagnosis based on a single specimen (= holotype), in which case "Lycaena aegina Leech" is the primary homonym of "Lycaena aegina Grum-Grshimailo" and not a misidentification as catalogued by Bridges (1994: VIII.

6). However, to further clarify diversity among the idas-gvoup, the Leech specimen cited by Nabokov should be sought in The Natural History Museum (London) and its identity also ascertained. To date this specimen has not been located among the Leech material still extant there (cf. Bálint 1999). Fig. 5-6. Genitalia of Plebejus fyodor sp. n. — 5: male, 6: female Taxonomy — Palaearctic members of the subgenus Lycaeides (Hübner, [1819]) were reviewed by Forster before the Second World War (Forster 1936). Later, Nabokov (who named the Andean sister group of the subgenus as Paralycaeides, see Nabokov 1945: 36) revised the Nearctic representatives of the subgenus, heavily criticizing Forster's results (see Nabokov 1944a: 96; 1945: 47, footnote No.l and 1949: 484). Nabokov's criticisms were based mainly on the argument that (1) Forster failed to examine type material and (2) their taxonomic schemes were fundamentally incompatible because (i) Nabokov classified agnata and subsolanus as subspecies of Idas (= idas sensu Forster and = argyrognomon sensu Nabokov) and (ii) christophi as subspecies of argyrognomon (= argyrognomon sensu Forster and = ismenias sensu Nabokov) (cf. Nabokov 1949: 480). Forster never re-examined "Lycaeides" in light of Nabokov's criticisms and the matter remained unresolved. However, most recent Russian authors accept christophi and subsolanus as species by concensus (cf. Lukhtanov and Lukhtanov 1994: 260-263, Korshunov and Gorbunov 1995: 176-177) a view that would suggest that the specific concept of Nabokov was possibly too broad and his groups polyphyletic. Forster's arrangement is compatible with the current Russian one. At present the taxa of the key presented can also be distinguished applying the "triangle method" of Nabokov for male genital capsules (cf. Nabokov 19446, fig. 1 and 1949, pl. 1).