Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Oct 6 22:43:38 CDT 2014 

Unfortunately, it may not be that simple! The relevant article of the Code is equivocal between 2 interpretations: 

13.4. Combined description of new genus-group taxon and new species. The combined description or definition of a new nominal genus or subgenus and a single included new nominal species, if marked by "gen. nov., sp. nov." or an equivalent expression, is deemed to confer availability on each name under Article 13.1.1

Interpretation 1 (loose): If only a single species is included (whether new or not), then it is type species and the genus is available; but if more than one species, then if one and only one new species is marked by "gen. nov., sp. nov." or an equivalent expression, then it is the type species and the genus is available;
Example: Aus bus Smith is redescribed as Cus bus (Smith), with no separate description for Cus (which was previously unavailable), and Cus is not tagged as new. This would make Cus available with type species Aus bus Smith. Won't work after 1999...

Interpretation 1 (strict): One and only one species (must be a new species) must be included and marked by "gen. nov., sp. nov." or an equivalent expression.

So, it all hangs on whether Acanthinozodium needs to be tagged as new in Denis, 1956???

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 7/10/14, JOCQUE Rudy <rudy.jocque at africamuseum.be> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 7 October, 2014, 6:47 AM
 
 Many thanks for the
 comments. 
 
 The outcome is
 apparently as follows: 
 
 Acanthinozodium is available and valid. Its
 type species is A. sericeum Denis, 1956. 
 Before the intended type species A. spinulosum
 was described by Denis, 1966, no other authors used the
 name. Denis published three other papers with
 Acanthinozodium in it  before that (1953, 1956 and 1959).
 The first one contained two species and one subspecies of
 the genus, the second only one: A. sericeum, the third one
 three. A. sericeum thus becomes the type species by monotypy
 and combined description. This is very convenient as that
 species is known from both sexes and its types have been
 traced whereas those of A. spinulosum, only known from
 females, could not be found and are probably lost.  
 
 Ciao, 
 
 Rudy
 
 Rudy
 JOCQUÉ
 Department of Zoology
 Royal Museum for Central Africa
 Leuvense steenweg 13
 B-3080
 Tervuren
 Belgium
 Tel x 32 2
 7695410
 
 ________________________________________
 Van: Taxacom [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 namens Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
 Verzonden: zondag 5 oktober 2014 21:48
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
 Laurent Raty
 Onderwerp: Re: [Taxacom]
 Nomenclatorial problem
 
 >
 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:
  >
 
 >   Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
 
 Nomenclatorial problem
  >   To:
  "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
  <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
  "JOCQUE Rudy" <rudy.jocque at africamuseum.be>
  >   Cc: tpape at snm.ku.dk, dyanega at ucr.edu
  >   Received: Sunday, 5 October,
  2014, 11:46 AM
  >
  >   Just to clarify something,
  the PDF on
  >   World
 Spider
  Catalog of the "1953"
 paper you refer to below
  >   is dated
 1950, and the date
  cited in the Catalog is
 1952!
  >   Unless there is good
 evidence
  to the contrary, the 1950 date
  >   must be accepted. In that
  paper, Denis tags his new species
  >   with n. sp., but attributes
  the genus to Denis, 1950. This
  >   suggests to me that the genus
  may have been described in an
 
 >   earlier 1950 paper, but this
  is
 presumably the 1966 paper,
  >   right?
 In the quote you give
  below, the spelling
 is
  >   Acantinozodium, not
  Acanthinozodium. Is that a mistake by
  >   you? If not, then that might
  be the correct original
 
 >   spelling of Acantinozodium
  Denis,
 1966. From your quote,
  >   Denis
 (1966) does not
  explicitly refer to the
 "1953"
  >   publication
 (that seems to be
  an inference imposed by
 you).
  >   So, that can't really
 be
  said to constitute a bibliographic
  >   reference to the
 
 "1953" paper. So, it all depends on whether
  >   Denis (1966) did enough to
  make the genus name available
 
 > 
  independently of the
 "1953" paper, and we
  can't
 tell that
  >   from
 
 what you have written! So, the valid name of the genus
  >   could actually be
 
 Acanthinozodium Jocque, 1991, making it a
 
 >   junior synonym of
  Zodariellum. We
 really need to see a PDF
  >   of Denis
 (1966).
  >
 
 >   Stephen
  >
 
 >   --------------------------------------------
  >   On Sat, 4/10/14, JOCQUE Rudy
  <rudy.jocque at africamuseum.be>
  >   wrote:
  >
  >    Subject:
 
 [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
  > 
  To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
  >   <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
  >    Received: Saturday, 4
 October, 2014,
  10:52 PM
 
 >
  > 
  Nomenclatorial
 problem
  >
 
 >    The problem concerns a spider genus
  in the family
 
 >    Zodariidae.
  >
  >
  >    In
 1953 J. Denis describes (in
  French) three
 species in a
  >    genus
  ‘Acanthinozodium’ without designating a
 type
  >    species. He does
 not do this because
  the publication in
  >    which he wanted
  to describe the genus is greatly delayed
  >   and
  > 
  only appears in 1966. In the latter paper he
 describes
 
 >    Acanthinozodium spinosum and mentions
  that this should
 
 >   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 �
  >   (the
 
 >    1953 paper).
  > 
    In 1991, in a revision of the
 family, I considered
 
 >    Acanthinozodium as a valid genus and
  designated the first
 
 >    species
  described in
 the 1953 paper (A. cirrisulcatum) as
 
 >    the type species.  In the same paper
  the genus was
 
 >    considered a senior
 
 synonym of Zodariellum Andreeva &
 
 > 
    Tyschenko, 1968
 described in Cyrillic. This paper is
 
 full
  >   of
 
 >    nomenclatorial mistakes e.g.. heading
  Lodariellum instead
 
 >   of
 
 >    Zodariellum; Z. continentalis is
  mentioned in the English
 
 >    abstract
  as belonging
 to the three new Zodarion species in
 
 >    the paper but described in
  Zodariellum, the authorsip of
 
 >   the
  > 
  taxa
 changes within the paper,  etc).
 
 >    In 2001 Marusik & Koponen
  consider Acanthinozodium a
 
 >    nomen
  nudum because no
 type species was designated at the
 
 >    first publication of the name. As a
  result, all species
 
 >    considered
  congeneric
 with Acanthinozodium are now in
 
 >    Zodariellum.
  > 
    The main problem is that the
 inclusion of these
  species
 
 >   was
  >    based on
 the palpal characters of
  “Z.
 continentalis�
  >    which
 is in
  fact a Zodarion.
 
 >    In the meantime
  we have
 found some characters that allow
 
 >   us
  > 
  to
 define Acanthinozodium more precisely and remove
  >    Zodariellum from its
 synonymy. The
  main question to be
  >    solved though
  is whether Acanthinozodium is valid.
  > 
    See
  >    ( http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/genus/3889/Zodariellum)
  >    for a short outline of
 the
  problem.
  >
  >
  >    We
 would appreciate your comments.
  >
  >    Rudy Jocqué
  & Arnaud Henrard
  >
  >    Royal Museum for Central
 Africa
  >    Tervuren -
 Belgium
  > 
 
 _______________________________________________
  >    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.
 
 >
 
 
 _______________________________________________
  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.
 _______________________________________________
 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