Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 88. (Budapest 1996)

Argaman, Q.: Generic synopsis of Scoliidae (Hymenoptera, Scolioidea)

type of Lisoca. BETREM was unaware that this species was later described by COSTA, in the year 1861, and not in 1858, as was the genus. The circumstance was first recognized by GUIGLIA & CAPRA (1934). Moreover, KROMBEIN (1951) designated quadripunctata FABRICIUS as the type of Lisoca. This fact escaped the attention of BETREM & BRADLEY (1964). They again reconsidered the selection of citreozonaia, declaring it invalid; since this species was not originally included. Their final conclusion was, however, inaccurate. If one will accept it, then Lisoca became a synonym, and a new name is to be proposed for the group it represents. Such a redundancy of the generic-group names is frustrating. In conformity with the Code (Art. 69a, iv), with respect to the principle of stability and continuity of Zoological Nomenclature, the selected type, despite the fact that it was not originally included, automatically is considered as the type ofthat genus, as it was subsequently synonymized with one of the originally included species. Hence Lisoca citreozonaia COSTA, 1858 was synonymized with Scolia bifasciata ROSSI, 1790, by SAUSSURE & SICHEL (1864), COSTA (1887), GUIGLIA & CAPRA (1934), and by BETREM (1935). As bifasciata was originally included, it is thus type of Lisoca. Different subsequent designations for quadripunctata were needless. The above mentioned problem is furthermore complicated by the fact that Scolia bifasciata ROSSI, 1790, is a junior homonym of Scolia bifasciata SVEDERUS, 1787, and hence not applicable. It was recognized, however, that bifasciata ROSSI is a junior synonym of Scolia quadricincta SCOPOL!, 1786, which is the replacement name. The latter species was included in Lisoca by COSTA, under the name notata FABRICIUS, 1798, as a variety of bifasciata. The implications involved by nominalistics are not finished. Respective to another originally included species, Scolia unifasciata CYRILLO, BETREM & BRADLEY (1964) asserted that: "his description [of COSTA] made clear that he meant by this S. erythrocephala nigrescens SAUSSURE". Such a verdict is again false. SAUSSURE & SICHEL (1864) never described it, as they never gave a Latin name to a variety. They simply registered them with Greek letters or numbers (see pages 273-274 in their work for illustrations). The hypothetical name nigrescens, attributed to SAUSSURE by BETREM (1935), resulted from a misunderstanding of the distribution data; conferred in Latin text by SAUSSURE & SICHEL ( 1864: 75) as: "Chersonneso Taurica (var. nigra, Klug). Sicilia (var. nigrescens, Mus. Saussureanum). Africa septentrionali, Nubia (var. rufescens, Klug), Abyssinia (Mus. Sichelianum)". A liberal translation might be: "In Cherson of Tauria (the black form of KLUG). Sicily (the blackish form, from the collection of SAUSSURE). In North Africa, Nubia (the reddish form of KLUG), Abyssinia (in collection of SlCHEL)". Correspondingly, KLUG never described any variety called nigra or rufescens. In addition, BlSCHOFF & BRADLEY (1929) restudied the types of PALLAS, deposited in the Museum of Humboldt University in Berlin. At that time, a specimen, probably a female (having second and third terga with yellow bands), was selected lectotype of Scolia galbula PALLAS, 1771. Another specimen, probably also a female (having second and fourth terga with lateral yellow spots, third with transverse yellow band), was selected lectotype of Scolia tricolor PALLAS, 1771. This selection caused no changes in the existing nomenclature. And BETREM (1935) accurately interpreted the species galbula. Afterward, BRADLEY (1972) stated, however, that the specimen with two yellow bands is tricolor, while that with spots and a band is galbula. In addition, contended BRADLEY, both bifasciata and quadricincta were junior synonyms