[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Oct 5 14:42:21 CDT 2014
2014
> If this is correct, this paper certainly did not make the genus available with a type fixed by monotypy<
True, but that was just an example. The important point is that all works between 1952 and 1966 which mention the genus need to be checked for possible availability of the genus. I agree that, if there are none, then the genus can be understood as available from Denis (1966)
Cheers,
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 5/10/14, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Sunday, 5 October, 2014, 9:33 PM
The whole text would be
better, but in the meantime, we still have this:
http://books.google.com/books?ei=jucwVMq1KoHlaveagbgI&id=ww4hAQAAIAAJ&q¬anthinozodium
http://books.google.com/books?ei=jucwVMq1KoHlaveagbgI&id=ww4hAQAAIAAJ&q=Diores+Zodarium
http://books.google.com/books?ei=jucwVMq1KoHlaveagbgI&id=ww4hAQAAIAAJ&qÞscroption+sommaire
http://books.google.com/books?ei=jucwVMq1KoHlaveagbgI&id=ww4hAQAAIAAJ&q=Zodariides+recueillis
This allows to see that:
- the 1966 spelling is undoubtedly
Acanthinozodium.
- the 1966 paper lists the
first paper as from 1952 (same as in WSC);
this paper is referenced in the text in
association to the genus name
(p.121:
"Le genre Acantinozodium est intermédiaire entre les
Diores et
les Zodarium: son type aurait dû
être A. spinulosum : mais par suite du
retard apporté à la publication de cette
étude, j’ai été amené à en
donner
une description très sommaire (1952) pour" [...?]) and
is listed
in the bibliography (p.136).
The genus also seems to have included only A.
spinulosum in this
publication (original
monotypy; see also
http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/refincluded/3793
).
OTOH, Denis (1959)
is titled "Description de *deux* zodariides
(Aranéides) nouveaux du Sahara" and,
according to
http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/refincluded/3317
, these two species were named
Acanthinozodium sahariense and Acanthinozodium
bicoloripes. If this is
correct, this paper
certainly did not make the genus available with a
type fixed by monotypy.
Laurent -
On 10/05/2014 12:57 AM, Stephen Thorpe
wrote:
> As a further complication, if
anyone (such as Denis, 1959) used the name Acanthinozodium
before 1966, and included a single species in it, then the
name may have been made available therein (e.g.
Acanthinozodium Denis, 1959, with type species
Acanthinozodium bicoloripes Denis 1959, by monotypy and
combined description). We need to see PDFs of all papers
which use the name Acanthinozodium before 1966!
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 5/10/14, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
>
>Â Â Â Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
Nomenclatorial problem
>Â Â Â To:
"taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
"JOCQUE Rudy" <rudy.jocque at africamuseum.be>
>Â Â Â Cc: tpape at snm.ku.dk, dyanega at ucr.edu
>Â Â Â Received: Sunday, 5 October,
2014, 11:46 AM
>
>Â Â Â Just to clarify something,
the PDF on
>Â Â Â World Spider
Catalog of the "1953" paper you refer to below
>Â Â Â is dated 1950, and the date
cited in the Catalog is 1952!
>Â Â Â Unless there is good evidence
to the contrary, the 1950 date
>Â Â Â must be accepted. In that
paper, Denis tags his new species
>Â Â Â with n. sp., but attributes
the genus to Denis, 1950. This
>Â Â Â suggests to me that the genus
may have been described in an
>Â Â Â earlier 1950 paper, but this
is presumably the 1966 paper,
>Â Â Â right? In the quote you give
below, the spelling is
>Â Â Â Acantinozodium, not
Acanthinozodium. Is that a mistake by
>Â Â Â you? If not, then that might
be the correct original
>Â Â Â spelling of Acantinozodium
Denis, 1966. From your quote,
>Â Â Â Denis (1966) does not
explicitly refer to the "1953"
>Â Â Â publication (that seems to be
an inference imposed by you).
>Â Â Â So, that can't really be
said to constitute a bibliographic
>Â Â Â reference to the
"1953" paper. So, it all depends on whether
>Â Â Â Denis (1966) did enough to
make the genus name available
>Â Â
independently of the "1953" paper, and we
can't tell that
>Â Â Â from
what you have written! So, the valid name of the genus
>Â Â Â could actually be
Acanthinozodium Jocque, 1991, making it a
>Â Â Â junior synonym of
Zodariellum. We really need to see a PDF
>Â Â Â of Denis (1966).
>
>Â Â Â Stephen
>
>Â Â Â --------------------------------------------
>Â Â Â On Sat, 4/10/14, JOCQUE Rudy
<rudy.jocque at africamuseum.be>
>Â Â Â wrote:
>
>Â Â Subject:
[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
>Â Â
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
>Â Â Â <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Â Â Received: Saturday, 4 October, 2014,
10:52 PM
>
>Â Â
Nomenclatorial problem
>
>Â Â The problem concerns a spider genus
in the family
>Â Â Zodariidae.
>
>
>Â Â In 1953 J. Denis describes (in
French) three species in a
>Â Â genus
‘Acanthinozodium’ without designating a type
>Â Â species. He does not do this because
the publication in
>Â Â which he wanted
to describe the genus is greatly delayed
>Â Â Â and
>Â Â
only appears in 1966. In the latter paper he describes
>Â Â Acanthinozodium spinosum and mentions
that this should
>Â Â Â have
>  been the type species “Le genre
Acantinozodium est
>  intermédiaire
entre les Diores et les Zodarium: son type
>  aurait dû être A. spinulosum : mais
par suite du retard
>  apporté à la
publication de cette etude, j’ai été
>  amené à en donner une description
très sommaire �
>Â Â Â (the
>Â Â 1953 paper).
>Â
 In 1991, in a revision of the family, I considered
>Â Â Acanthinozodium as a valid genus and
designated the first
>Â Â species
described in the 1953 paper (A. cirrisulcatum) as
>  the type species. In the same paper
the genus was
>Â Â considered a senior
synonym of Zodariellum Andreeva &
>Â
 Tyschenko, 1968 described in Cyrillic. This paper is
full
>Â Â Â of
>Â Â nomenclatorial mistakes e.g.. heading
Lodariellum instead
>Â Â Â of
>Â Â Zodariellum; Z. continentalis is
mentioned in the English
>Â Â abstract
as belonging to the three new Zodarion species in
>Â Â the paper but described in
Zodariellum, the authorsip of
>Â Â Â the
>Â Â
taxa changes within the paper, etc).
>Â Â In 2001 Marusik & Koponen
consider Acanthinozodium a
>Â Â nomen
nudum because no type species was designated at the
>Â Â first publication of the name. As a
result, all species
>Â Â considered
congeneric with Acanthinozodium are now in
>Â Â Zodariellum.
>Â
 The main problem is that the inclusion of these
species
>Â Â Â was
>Â Â based on the palpal characters of
“Z. continentalis�
>Â Â which is in
fact a Zodarion.
>Â Â In the meantime
we have found some characters that allow
>Â Â Â us
>Â Â
to define Acanthinozodium more precisely and remove
>Â Â Zodariellum from its synonymy. The
main question to be
>Â Â solved though
is whether Acanthinozodium is valid.
>Â
 See
>Â Â ( http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/genus/3889/Zodariellum)
>Â Â for a short outline of the
problem.
>
>
>Â Â We would appreciate your comments.
>
>  Rudy Jocqué
& Arnaud Henrard
>
>Â Â Royal Museum for Central Africa
>Â Â Tervuren - Belgium
>Â Â
_______________________________________________
>Â Â Taxacom Mailing List
>Â Â Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Â Â http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>Â Â The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Â Â Celebrating 27
years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years
of Taxacom in 2014.
>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 27 years of
Taxacom in 2014.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list