Euura gallae. Holotype ♀, figs 1–6: “[handwritten] Euura gallae Newm. [printed] Det. in Coll. Ent. Club, Inst.’d 1826. Pres’d 1927 by Club to Hope Coll.”, “[red] Holotype (teste A. Liston, 2013) Euura gallae Newman, 1837”, “Euura mucronata (Hartig, 1837) det. Liston 2013”, “DEI-GISHym 19993”. Condition: apical three flagellomeres of both antennae and right rear tarsus missing.

Newman’s very short original description of Euura gallae, based on a single specimen [holotype], is impossible to identify as belonging to one of the currently recognised species. The description reads: “Euura gallae. Nigra: antennis nigris, apice ferrugineis: pedibus pallidis. Black: mouth yellow; antennæ rust-coloured at the tip; the legs entirely pale. The insect is the size of Nematus pallipes: the only specimen I have observed was taken by Mr. Walker, in Scotland.”

Five specimens bearing the name Euura gallae, all females, were found in the Hope Collections. Four of these belong to the Euura atra species group. They have nearly completely dark mouthparts, except for the labrum, and the femora are conspicuously black basally. They therefore do not agree with the description of the holotype. The fifth specimen (Figs 1–6) has more extensively pale mouthparts and antennae, the malar area is conspicuously pale, and the legs are almost completely pale. This specimen is identified as the holotype of Euura gallae.

Newman’s description of Euura gallae pre-dates Hartig’s of Nematus mucronatus by a couple of months. Article 23.9 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is here applied, to reverse the precedence of the species names, because the name Euura gallae (nomen oblitum) has not been used as valid after 1899, and Euura mucronata (Nematus mucronatus: nomen protectum) has been used as a valid species name in [very many] more than 25 works published by more than 10 authors in the last 50 years. A list of these references is available from us on request.

The type species of Euura Newman, 1837 by subsequent designation of Rohwer (1911: 80) is Euura gallae Newman, 1837. Dalla Torre (1894: 276) listed Euura gallae as a valid species of Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837, but with a footnote “= ? C. saliceti (Fall.).” At this time, Cryptocampus saliceti (Fallén, 1808) was in use as the name of the species called Euura mucronata (Hartig, 1837) by most recent authors. Konow (1905b) placed Euura gallae as a synonym of Cryptocampus medullarius (Hartig, 1837). The latter is a junior subjective synonym of the species currently known as Euura amerinae (Linnaeus, 1758). Rohwer (1911: 94) and all subsequent authors followed Konow’s opinion, in that gallae was regarded as a synonym of Euura amerinae, or one of the subjective junior synonyms of that taxon. It is unlikely that any specialist, apart from Newman himself, has examined the holotype of Euura gallae. Clearly, the identity of Euura gallae has until now been widely misinterpreted. As a result of the new identification, the genus group name Gemmura E. L. Smith, 1968 (type species Nematus mucronatus Hartig, 1837), proposed as a subgenus of Euura, becomes a junior objective synonym of Euura Newman, sensu stricto. If in future it should be considered that recognition of subgenera within Euura is necessary, then a new name for the stem-galling groups would be needed. However, in our opinion there is at present neither sufficient phylogenetic support, nor a practical justification (because the genus includes too few species) for such an act. Distinction of species groups, if considered necessary, should be achieved by employing “informal” group names whose use is not regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Such names might, for example, be the “mucronata group” for the bud-gallers and the “atra group” for the stem-gallers.

Phyllotoma tormentillae. Lectotype (hereby designated) ♀ [adult]: “[handwritten] Phyllotoma tormentillae, N. [printed] Det. in Coll. Ent. Club, Inst.’d 1826. Pres’d 1927 by Club to Hope Coll.”; “[red] Lectotype Phyllotoma tormentillae Healy, 1868 des. A. Liston 2013”; “Fenella nigrita Westwood, 1839 det. A. Liston 2013”, “DEI-GISHym 19994”. Condition: fair. Paralectotypes: 11♀ with same original labels, [blue] paralectotype labels, and “Fenella nigrita Westwood, 1839 det. A. Liston 2013”. One paralectotype has a large handwritten label reading “Phyllotoma Tormentillae N A complete life history of this species by Mr Healy appears in the Entomologist Vol iv p140”.

It is considered that the lectotype of Phyllotoma tormentillae [adult] was reared from the larvae described by Healy. The synonymy of Phyllotoma tormentillae with Fenella nigrita as given by Kirby (1882) and in various subsequent works is confirmed.

Fenusa ianthe. Lectotype (hereby designated) ♀:”[handwritten] Phyllotoma”; “[handwritten] P. ianthe, Newm [printed] Det. in Coll. Ent. Club, Inst.’d 1826. Pres’d 1927 by Club to Hope Coll.”; “[red] Lectotype Fenusa ianthe Newman, 1837 des. A. Liston 2013”; “Harpiphorus lepidus (Klug, 1818) det. A. Liston 2013”, “DEI-GISHym 19995”. Condition: fair, but apical tarsomeres of all legs missing.

Although the sex of the type specimen[s] is not explicitly mentioned by Newman, the described colour pattern is found only in the female of this species. The comment “This insect appears generally distributed[..]” leads one to suppose that the description is based on more than one specimen. However, Westwood (1839: 53) wrote “This description is drawn from Mr. Newman’s typical specimen, which he has been so kind as to lend me; and of which the fore wings are unlike, the transverse nerve separating the first two submarginal cells being obliterated in one of them[..]”. The specimen here designated as lectotype possesses this abnormality (vein Rs+M is missing in the left forewing), and therefore is probably the same specimen as examined by Westwood. The synonymy of Fenusa ianthe with Harpiphorus lepidus, already adopted by Kirby (1882), is confirmed.

Fenusa parviceps. Lectotype (hereby designated) ♀:”[handwritten] Druida parviceps, Newm [printed] Det. in Coll. Ent. Club, Inst.’d 1826. Pres’d 1927 by Club to Hope Coll.”; “[red] Lectotype Fenusa parviceps Newman, 1837 des. A. Liston 2013”; “Heterarthrus nemoratus (Fallén, 1808) det. A. Liston 2013”, “DEI-GISHym 19996”. Condition: fair. Paralectotypes: 2♀ and 1 cocoon-disc with same original labels, [blue] paralectotype labels, and “Heterarthrus nemoratus (Fallén, 1808) det. A. Liston 2013”.

The synonymy of Fenusa parviceps with Heterarthrus nemoratus as proposed by Cameron (1876) and adopted in numerous subsequent works, is confirmed.

Selandria pallida. Lectotype (hereby designated) ♀:”[handwritten] Hoplocampa pallida, Steph. [printed] Det. in Coll. Ent. Club, Inst.’d 1826. Pres’d 1927 by Club to Hope Coll.”; “[red] Lectotype Selandria pallida Newman, 1837 des. A. Liston 2013”; “Hoplocampa alpina (Zetterstedt, 1838) det. A. Liston 2013”, “DEI-GISHym 19997”. Condition: fair. Paralectotype: 1♂ with same original label, [blue] paralectotype label, and “Hoplocampa alpina (Zetterstedt, 1838) det. A. Liston 2013”.

Within Hoplocampa, Selandria pallida Newman is a junior secondary homonym of Tenthredo pallida Serville, 1823 (= Hoplocampa flava (Linnaeus, 1760): Lacourt 2000). The synonymy of Selandria pallida with Hoplocampa alpina, which has long been recognised (e.g. Kirby 1882), is confirmed.

Phylloecus faunus was stated by Abe and Smith (1991) to have been designated by monotypy as the type species of Phylloecus Newman, 1838. This is not so, because Newman (1838, p. 486) ends his discussion on his new genus with the words “[..] but it seemed to me that the division containing Faunus, &c. is equally distinct, and therefore I would submit the propriety of raising these also, to the rank of a genus, under the name Phylloecus”. His foregoing text makes it clear that at least Cephus satyrus (Panzer, 1801) (a junior synonym of Hartigia nigra (M. Harris, [1779]) was thus considered also to belong to Phylloecus. Rohwer (1911) interpreted this correctly and accordingly designated Phylloecus faunus as type species. However, Rohwer (1911, p. 94 [index], under the names cynosbati and faunus) makes it clear that he regarded Phylloecus faunus as conspecific with Janus cynosbati (Linnaeus, 1758) (= Janus femoratus (Curtis, 1830): see Blank et al. (2009) on nomenclature). From Newman’s description and subsequent discussion it is evident that his concept of Phylloecus corresponds closely with that of what in recent years has been called Hartigia, and this correct interpretation was followed by various authors during the 19th Century. The lectotype of Phylloecus faunus belongs to the species recently known as Hartigia helleri (Taschenberg, 1871) (see below, under Phylloecus faunus). Benson (1951) and Pagliano and Scaramozzino (1990) treated Hartigia and Phylloecus as synonymous, but did not use the latter as the valid name. On the other hand, the misinterpretation of Phylloecus as Janus also has a long history, which can be traced back at least to Kirby (1882), and in recent years this wrong synonymy has become universally accepted. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999) unfortunately provides no opportunity of maintaining the name Hartigia in precedence over Phylloecus, because the use of Phylloecus as a valid name after 1899, by for example Marchand (1902) and Richter von Binnenthal (1903), precludes the application of Article 23.9. (reversal of precedence). Neither are the species of Phylloecus of such economic, scientific or cultural importance that an application to the Commission to conserve the name Hartigia seems likely to achieve success, although some species are of rather minor significance to growers of soft fruit and ornamental roses in North America (Smith DR 1986), and Phylloecus faunus has been considered for use in the biological control of Rubus in Australia (e.g. Bruzzese 1982; as Hartigia albomaculatus). As a result of the new synonymy, the following species names are either newly transferred to Phylloecus (comb. n.) or the original name combinations are re-instated as valid (comb. rev.). New combinations are followed in parentheses by the original combination of the species group name. Only the nominal species which were considered to be valid by Taeger et al. (2010) are listed:

Phylloecus agilis (F. Smith, 1874), comb. n. (Cephus agilis)

Phylloecus albotegularis (Wei & Nie, 1996), comb. n. (Hartigia albotegularis)

Phylloecus algiricus André, 1881 comb. rev.

Phylloecus bicinctus Provancher, 1875 comb. rev.

Phylloecus cheni (Wei & Nie, 1999), comb. n. (Hartigia cheni)

Phylloecus coreanus (Takeuchi, 1938), comb. n. (Hartigia coreana)

Phylloecus cowichanus (Ries, 1937), comb. n. (Hartigia cowichana)

Phylloecus elevatus (Maa, 1944), comb. n. (Hartigia elevata)

Phylloecus epigonus (Zhelochovtsev, 1961), comb. n. (Hartigia epigona)

Phylloecus etorofensis (Takeuchi, 1955), comb. n. (Hartigia etorofensis)

Phylloecus fasciatus (Cresson, 1880), comb. n. (Cephus fasciatus)

Phylloecus faunus Newman, 1838, comb. rev.

Phylloecus kamijoi (Shinohara, 1999), comb. n. (Hartigia kamijoi)

Phylloecus linearis (Schrank, 1781), comb. n. (Tenthredo linearis)

Phylloecus mexicanus (Guerin, [1844]), comb. n. (Cephus mexicanus)

Phylloecus minutus (Wei & Nie, 1997), comb. n. (Hartigia minuta)

Phylloecus niger (M. Harris, [1779]), comb. n. (Sirex niger)

Phylloecus nigratus (Dovnar-Zapolskij, 1931), comb. n. (Pachycephus nigratus)

Phylloecus nigritus (Forsius, 1918), comb. n. (Macrocephus nigritus)

Phylloecus nigrotibialis (Wei & Nie, 1977), comb. n. (Hartigia nigrotibialis)

Phylloecus pyrrha (Zhelochovtsev, 1968), comb. n. (Hartigia pyrrha) [Zhelochovtsev gives no etymology for this species name. It is here considered to be a noun, the name of a figure in Greek mythology]

Phylloecus riesi (D. R. Smith, 1986), comb. n. (Hartigia riesi)

Phylloecus sibiricola Jakovlev, 1891 comb. rev.

Phylloecus simulator (Kokujev, 1910), comb. n. (Macrocephus simulator)

Phylloecus stackelbergi (Gussakovskij, 1945), comb. n. (Hissarocephus stackelbergi)

Phylloecus stigmaticalis (Wei & Nie, 1996), comb. n. (Hartigia stigmaticalis)

Phylloecus trimaculatus (Say, 1824), comb. n. (Cephus trimaculatus)

Phylloecus viator (F. Smith, 1874), comb. n. (Cephus viator)

Phylloecus xanthostoma (Eversmann, 1847), comb. n. (Cephus xanthostoma)

Phylloecus zhengi (Wei & Nie, 1996), comb. n. (Hartigia zhengi)

Phylloecus faunus. Lectotype (hereby designated) ♀, Figs 7–12. “[handwritten] Phylloecus faunus, Newm. [printed] Det. in Coll. Ent. Club, Inst.’d 1826. Pres’d 1927 by Club to Hope Coll.”; “[handwritten] Faunus Newm.”; “[red] Lectotype Phylloecus faunus Newman, 1838 des. A. Liston 2013”; “Hartigia faunus (Newman, 1838) det. A. Liston 2013”. Condition: missing most of right antennal flagellum, most tarsi except right middle and rear; abdomen after tergum 5 glued to specimen.

[see also under Phylloecus, above]. Newman refers to a syntype series of three specimens of Phylloecus faunus: “Two specimens of this insect have been taken by Mr. Ingall, and one by Mr. Stephens”. The single specimen examined agrees well with the brief description. Most taxonomic works and catalogues (e.g. Konow 1905a; Taeger et al. 2010) have until now placed Phylloecus faunus as a synonym of Janus cynosbati (Linnaeus, 1758), although it should have been apparent from several characters described or discussed by Newman (1838), that these are not conspecific. The mistaken synonymy was possibly first published by Kirby (1882).

Although the name faunus has not to the best of our knowledge been used as valid after 1899, neither has the name helleri been sufficiently used (in 21 publications by 27 authors including co-authors) as valid in the last fifty years to satisfy the conditions of Article 23.9 (reversal of precedence) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). A list of these references is available from us on request. The lectotype of Phylloecus faunus agrees in all important points with the characterisation of Hartigia helleri by Jansen (1998). Quinlan (1970) identified a second female specimen in the Natural History Museum, London, which should be regarded as a paralectotype of Phylloecus faunus, as Hartigia albomaculatus [sic!], noted that it bore a label “faunas” [presumably in reality faunus] and mentioned that no reliable information is available on where it was caught. One might doubt the reliability of Newman’s statement that the types of Phylloecus faunus were collected around London, because under its synonyms Hartigia albomaculata and Hartigia helleri no evidence for the presence of this species in the British Isles has been published, and because neither of the two type specimens still in existence bears any explicit label data referring to the collection locality. However, an occurrence in the London area, at least historically, seems not unlikely. Chevin (1993) presented several records from northern France, under the name Hartigia albomaculata, and later (Chevin and Chevin 2007) recorded Hartigia helleri from the Département de la Manche, not far from the Channel coast. It is concluded that Phylloecus faunus should be used as the valid name of the species referred to in recent years first as Hartigia albomaculata (or Hartigia albomaculatus, misspelling) and latterly as Hartigia helleri, and that after weighing up the evidence, the type locality of Phylloecus faunus can be accepted as being in the area of London.