List of Entomological Publications (Autobibliographie)
Ulrich PAUKSTADT & Laela Hayati PAUKSTADT
Paukstadt, U., Paukstadt, L. H. & Brosch, U. (1999): Anmerkungen zu einigen der von Bouvier beschriebenen Taxa der Gattung Antheraea Hübner,  1816 (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). - Galathea - Berichte des Kreises Nürnberger Entomologen eV (Nürnberg), Suppl. 6: pp. 3-12; col.-pl. with 4 figs.
Summary: Remarks on taxa of the genus Antheraea Hübner, 1819 ("1816"), which were described by Bouvier (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). - This contribution deals with nomenclatural acts and taxonomic remarks on the taxa of the genus Antheraea Hübner, 1819 ("1816") (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). The subsequent designation of the female 'type' [lectotype] of Antheraea paphia javanensis Bouvier, 1928 by Bouvier (1936) is considered being not valid because the female obviously not belongs to the original type series. The original designation of the female 'cotype' [syntype] of A. frithi tonkinensis Bouvier, 1936 is considered being not valid; wrong figure numbers on plate IX caused that the designation was applied to the wrong female: A. frithi javanensis Bouvier, 1928. Neither a holotype nor a lectotype of tonkinensis has been designated by Bouvier. The female lectotype of Antheraea frithi var. javanensis Bouvier, 1928 and the female lectotype of Antheraea frithi tonkinensis Bouvier, 1936 are designated herein. Both type specimens are in Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris). Bouvier (1928) described subcaeca as a variation of Antheraea paphia (Linnaeus, 1758). In 1936 he erroneously again used the name subcaeca for an aberration of Antheraea helferi Moore, 1859. The name subcaeca Bouvier, 1936 is considered to be infrasubspecific and therefore cannot enter into homonymy of subcaeca Bouvier, 1928. No replacement name for subcaeca Bouvier, 1936 is necessary, because a replacement name would becomes a junior synonym of A. helferi. The female of subcaeca is in Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris) and considered being no type material.
Remarks: We have to point out that collective-group names used in this contribution were established tentative for certain assemblages of taxonomic convenience, they do not comply with the requirements for a valid description according to the provisions of the ICZN (1985). In the application of group names we mostly follow Nässig (1991), with minor modifications by us.