Comment on the proposed precedence of Maculinea van Eecke, 1915 over Phengaris Doherty, 1891 (Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE) (Case 3508; see BZN 67: 129–132) Z. Fric Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Branisovska 31, CZ-37005 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic (e-mail: fric@entu.cas.cz) O. Kudrna Naturmuseum Südtirol, Bindergasse 1, I-39100 Bozen, Italy P. Pech University of Hradec Králové, Rokitanskeho 62, CZ-500 03 Hradec Kralove, and University of South Bohemia, Branisovska 31, CZ-37005 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic M. Wiemers Department of Animal Biodiversity, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, A-1030 Wien, Austria J. Zrzavy University of South Bohemia, Branisovska 31, CZ-37005 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic This comment rejects the proposal of Case 3508, requesting the Commission to use its plenary power to rule the precedence of Maculinea van Eecke, 1915, over Phengaris Doherty, 1891, in order to stabilise zoological nomenclature. We suggest that such an act would not serve this purpose but would, indeed, be likely to produce the opposite effect. (1) Maculinea was synonymised with Phengaris by Fric et al. (2007); the very close relationship of Asiatic Phengaris and palaearctic Maculinea was shown earlier by Als et al. (2004) and Pech et al. (2004). The main purpose for the precedence of Maculinea over Phengaris is, according to Balletto et al. (BZN 67: 129–136), the prevention of nomenclatural confusion in view of the importance of Maculinea species; because they serve as model organisms of obligatory myrmecophily and because of the inclusion of the genus Maculinea in European legislature. (2) Balleto et al. claim that the name Maculinea van Eecke, 1915, has been universally used for the European and Asiatic ‘Large Blue’ butterflies for almost a century and that it is involved in the ‘old and the recent scientific literature alike, as well as [in] all standard reference books on European butterflies (Higgins & Riley, 1970; Tolman & Lewington, 1997, Asher et al. 2001, etc.)’. We have to reject such a statement. We consider that the use of Maculinea has not been stable during the last century as claimed in Case 3508. Furthermore, two of the ‘standard reference books’ cited above are field guides and the third is a distribution atlas of British butterflies, none of these publications being of taxonomic or major scientific importance. During 315 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67(4) December 2010