M. phoebe caucasica Staudinger, 1870

[TL: “Kindermann ganz ähnliche Stücke im Caucasus fing (?- Helenendorf; Kindermann leg.)”]. The name caucasica was preoccupied by M. didyma caucasica Staudinger, 1861 and the name was replaced first by M. phoebe ottonis Fruhstorfer 1917. A lectotype female and a paralectotype male were designated by Nekrutenko (Hesselbarth et al. 1995: 2: 1028) from the Staudinger collection, housed at Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt Universität, Berlin (figs 5A, B, C & 6A, B, C). Verity subsequently also proposed a replacement name, caucasicola Verity, 1919, this being a synonym of ottonis. Kemal & Koçak (2011: 44) used the name ‘ Melitaea (Cinclidia) (phoebe) sextilis Jachontov, 1909 ’ as a replacement name giving it subspecific(?) status; however, Jachontov (1909: 285) used this name for a variety of second generation M. phoebe and, so far as the authors are aware, no author since has used the name sextilis in favour of ottonis Fruhstorfer, 1917. In fact the M. phoebe species group portrayed by Kemal & Koçak (2011: 44), in their article on eastern Mediterranean butterflies, included M. punica, a species absent from the eastern Mediterranean. This perpetuates confusion, which the first author with others has been trying to resolve. Hesselbarth et al. (1995: 3, Tafel 80/81: figs 30– 33 ♂; Tafel 82/83: figs 1– 4 ♀) placed ottonis as a synonym of M. phoebe. Although the lectotype female does not show all the characters typical of M. phoebe, for instance the underside submarginal black arches do not touch the intervening veins (see Fig. 5B), the paralectotype underside (Fig. 6B) certainly shows all the characters typical of M. phoebe. Recent authors, such Tshikolovets (2011: 497; 2003: plate 24: figs 16 m. and 17 f.), Tshikolovets et al. (2014: 318–319), van Oorschot & Coutsis (2014: 60) and Russell & Tennent (2016: 45, note 22) have all agreed that this is a subspecies of M. phoebe and not M. ornata, with which the present authors concur.