Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Calendar
Upcoming Events

Interested in a 2022 BugGuide gathering in New Mexico?

Photos of insects and people from the Spring 2021 gathering in Louisiana, April 28-May 2

National Moth Week 2020 photos of insects and people.

Photos of insects and people from the 2019 gathering in Louisiana, July 25-27

Discussion, insects and people from the 2018 gathering in Virginia, July 27-29

Photos of insects and people from the 2015 gathering in Wisconsin, July 10-12

Photos of insects and people from the 2014 gathering in Virginia, June 4-7.

Previous events


TaxonomyBrowseInfoImagesLinksBooksData
A new Blastobasis associated with acorns and pecans in the southeastern and southcentral United States....
By David Adamski
Association for Tropical Lepidoptera 7(2), 2004
Cite: 746606 with citation markup [cite:746606]

PDF Link
PDF Link at TropLep: http://www.troplep.org/Adamski-new-Blastobasis.pdf

I believe that the puplication year should be 2003.

 
Published in 2000?
troplep.org lists publication date of Vol. 7, No. 2, as September 2000.

 
Not sure
The in print year is 2000 but the actual publication year is 2003 meaning the work was not released to the public until 2003 despite the fianl draft having been finished and slated for release in 2000. Greg Pohl currently lists the species described therein as "B. taurusella Adamski, [2003] 2000 (Blastobasis)". But I seem to recall that ICZN does it the opposite but that doesn't make sense to me since authors normally place corrections in brackets when quoting a source.

Now if the work were actually printed at the end of 2003 but not mailed out to the public until 2004, the year should be 2004 per Code. So I'm not absolutely positive the 2004 year is bad. I think the only reason this stuff matters is to determine priority in the case of a lump, etc. or to keep things straight in cases where species and works can get confused.

Hope I'm getting this all right and apologies if I'm covering stuff you already know.

 
My head is spinning...
Whenever I try to delve into such matters, I come down with a bad case of ICZN-itis ("ick-zen-itis"). Luckily, some fresh air usually cures it.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.