The Undescribed Species of Motschulsky 



The Russian entomologist, Victor de Motschulsky, published a letter in 

 the Etudes entomologiques, pp. 8-25, in 1855. This letter was a description 

 of a collecting trip he had made in the area about Obispo, Panama. In the 

 several weeks of his stay he found about thirty kinds of Pselaphidae, practically 

 all new since virtually nothing was known of the pselaphid fauna of the region. 

 These "new species" were listed by Motschulsky, but save for a few words or 

 a sketch, were not further treated, and Motschulsky never published their 

 description. 



Since the majority of these Motschulsky names have no description, they 

 have no status at all. Even if these specimens could be located, and their 

 authenticity proven (which is practically impossible now), subsequent de- 

 scription by some one else could not establish priority by Motschulsky. There- 

 fore these names are of historical, but not of taxonomic, importance. David 

 Sharp (1887, pp. 1-2) sums up the view of Reitter and himself in a cogent 

 manner: 



These names have no claim to be adopted, and I mention them only be- 

 cause they have been given as "pubhshed" in the list of Motschulsky's genera 

 and species issued by the Entomological Society of Russia in 1868. In the case 

 of three or four genera rude outline figures were given, and as these enable 

 us to form an imperfect idea of what Motschulsky intended, their names have 

 been adopted by Reitter and are also included in our list. It is certainly un- 

 fortunate that this letter of Motschulsky's should never have been followed 

 by any proper description of the objects mentioned and named therein. It is 

 quite clear that he could not have made a proper study of these minute 

 creatures on board ship between Colon and New Orleans, where his letter was 

 written; and, so far as we know, he never returned to their study except 

 to sketch the rude outline figures I have alluded to. Although some of these 

 insects have become disseminated to a small extent under Motschulsky's 

 names, but little value can be attached to these "typical" examples. In the 

 case of two of these names Reitter has had an opportunity of testing them, 

 and finds they were incorrectly applied by Motschulsky; in short, Motschulsky 

 not only failed to describe the species he gave names to, but actually did not 

 even discriminate them. For these reasons I think the authors of the Munich 

 Catalogue did right in refusing to recognize these names, and certainly Reitter 

 has done all that courtesy and consideration demand when he treated those 

 that were accompanied by figures as entitled to vahdity. 



I have listed the Motschulsky names of Panama pselaphids: 



Batrisus collaris Cercocerus perplexus Eupsenius aequatorialis 



Batrisus cylindricus Ctenistes aequatorialis Metaxis robustus 



Batrisus frontalis Euplectus adustus Trichonyx aequinoctialis 



Bryaxis consanguinea Euplectus antennatus Trichonyx canaliculatus 



Bryaxis cornigera Euplectus cordicollis Trimicerus pacificus 



Bryaxis glabrella Euplectus robustus Trimicerus rivalis 



Bryaxis macrura Euplectus tropicalis Tychus pilosus 

 Bryaxis nitida 



(359) 



