[Taxacom] Type genus of Hepialidae

[Denis Brothers]

Doug is essentially correct, but Article 16.2 of the latest Code specifies that the name of the type genus must be cited when a new family is proposed, but only for names proposed after 1999.

Denis

From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Douglas Yanega via Taxacom
Sent: Monday, 08 November 2021 19:23
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Type genus of Hepialidae

On 11/8/21 8:51 AM, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> Since Taxacome is inhabited by some super sleuths who manage to dig up the
> most obscure nomenclatural stuff I thought I would post this inquiry. The
> Hepialidae Stephens 1828 is 'obviously' derived from the genus Hepialus
> (Linnaeus, 1758). But Stephens did not designate Hepialus as the type
> genus, and so far in my looking through the literature the earliest
> designation I can find for Hepialus as the type genus is Nye & Fletcher
> (1991 - Generic names of moths of the world). They do not indicate their
> designation is original, so perhaps there is something earlier. I have so
> far not found (or missed) anything in the early family listings by Walker
> or Kirby, or various other publications I have so far read. If anyone
> recalls anything earlier than Nye & Fletcher please let me know. It's one
> of those items that could be out there,but 'buried' amongst everything else.

The way that typification of family names work is slightly different
from other taxonomic ranks; the choice of type genus determines what the
name of the family must be (Articles 29, 63 & 64). In essence, then,
whoever first uses a name as a family-rank name establishes what the
type genus is. I don't see that there is a specific requirement for a
formal designation.

So, it appears that the type genus of Hepialidae was established as
Hepialus automatically by whoever first published that name (or a
variant) as a valid family-rank taxon. Again, the way this part of the
Code is worded, it doesn't look as if a formal designation is required,
and I'm fairly certain that a lot of very old family-rank taxa did not
have formally designated types in their original publications.

If I'm wrong about this, I expect someone will correct me.

The potential for confusion does exist, if there are related genera with
very similar names (e.g., let's suppose there was a genus named
"Hepiala" or "Hepialis"), but this doesn't happen very often.

Peace,

--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html<https://protect-za.mimecast.com/s/nvP_C98XYntx3gX7uOi9Uc?domain=faculty.ucr.edu>
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom<https://protect-za.mimecast.com/s/3WeVC0g3D4S4oD5PHOaoWV?domain=mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org<https://protect-za.mimecast.com/s/TVfUCg5XMvfN0xRQU7d_-l?domain=taxacom.markmail.org>

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.

UKZN email disclaimer:
The contents of this e-mail may contain personal information, and/or privileged information, and/or confidential information. The information contained herein is therefore only meant for consumption by the recipient mentioned and for the purpose as specified in the body of the e-mail. Should you receive this e-mail in error kindly inform the sender of such by responding to the sender via a response e-mail and thereafter please delete the original e-mail received as well as the response e-mail. The University of KwaZulu-Natal e-mail platform is meant for business purposes (of the University) only and the University therefore does not accept any liability whatsoever that may arise from instances where such platform is utilised for personal reasons. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail represent those of the author and may not necessarily be binding on the University. The author of the e-mail may also not bind the University in any manner that may be construed from the contents of the e-mail unless such sender has been granted the requisite authority to do so by the University.