Comment (Case 3767) – Support for the conservation of prevailing usage of the specific name Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 (currently Parnassius phoebus), and that of Doritis ariadne Lederer, 1853 (currently Parnassius ariadne), by designation of a neotype

In the most recent European checklist of butterflies (Wiemers et al., 2018) there was agreement among the 12 co-authors (from 11 different countries) to keep the name Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793) until the case has been decided by the commission, because this name has been used continuously during the past 150 years whereas the name Parnassius corybas Fischer von Waldheim, 1823 never has until by Hanus & Theye (2010, 2011). Korb (2020a) in his opposing comment argues that many papers and websites already use the name Parnassius corybas but compared to the many recent works that have continued to use the name Parnassius phoebus (e.g. Hiermann et al., 2019; Kudrna et al., 2011; Litman et al., 2018; Maes et al., 2019; Middleton-Welling et al., 2020; Reinhardt et al., 2020; Wiemers et al., 2020) only very few have used the name Parnassius corybas (e.g. Korb, 2020b; Kozlov et al., 2019). The paper by Balletto et al. (2014) is listed by Korb (2020a) as supporting the opinions and decisions of Hanus & Theye (2010, 2011), but this is incorrect, because Balletto et al. (2014) explicitly suggest to protect the name Parnassius phoebus by referral to the ICZN (Balletto & Bonelli, 2014). Even on the internet, most websites refrain from using the new name (e.g. www. lepinet.fr, www.lepiforum.de, www.pyrgus.de, https://www.ufz.de/lepidiv/, https://lepus. unine.ch, www.eurobutterflies.com, https://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life). On Wikipedia and Wikiwand, only the Russian language version uses it, whereas the English, German, French, Italian and Dutch versions do not. In my view, Article 75.6 of the Code is the correct answer to Case 3767 and therefore I hope for a positive decision of the ICZN.