[Taxacom] type species of Antitrisuloides Holloway, 1985 ?

[Stephen Thorpe]

 Francisco,A couple of comments. I don't have access to the full Holloway (1985) article, only what can be seen using snippets on Google Books. However: (1) Articles must be interpreted as a whole, with a little bit of room for interpretation, based on plausible assumptions. So, even though the type designation itself, taken out of context, is ambiguous, that ambiguity may be able to be resolved by reading the whole article, in which is would presumably become clear which catocalina Moore was intended as the type species;(2) I think that Holloway (1985) did include just the type species in the new genus, so we have potential type species fixation also by monotypy, though it is possible that, even though he may have redescribed the species in detail, he fails to cite the name of the species in such a way as to resolve the ambiguity between the two catocalina Moore (i.e. by not citing the original combination or date). This could get messy for historical literature, as it could potentially result in the species redescription conferring availability on the name used as a new name attributable to the redescriber, e.g. Antitrisuloides catocalina Holloway, 1985!Cheers, Stephen
    On Sunday, 14 November 2021, 06:38:03 am NZDT, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:  
 
 Stephen you pointed to the same problem I also would like to mention:

"catocalina Moore" alone is probably not a valid type designation. Art. 
67.2.1 demands a name having been cited by "an available name of a 
species or subspecies", so citing a name without genus is not a "name 
cited". A name of a species is a binomen, it requires a generic name.

Since there are two "catocalina Moore", the citation was ambiguous, and 
Art. 68.2 fails, because Art. 67.5.3 applies. In any case, we have no 
original type designation, and hence, no type fixed by original 
designation. Also, Art. 67.2.5 needs to be considered. I cannot read the 
publication very well, Stephen you might have a better access.
If Antitrisuloides can have a validly fixed type in the original source, 
then by monotypy. I could not check how many species were originally 
included. Should probably be checked.

Antitrisuloides could be a nomen nudum in that 1985 source.

Best wishes
Francisco



Am 13.11.2021 um 09:03 schrieb Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom:
>  I think the confusion possibly arises from Holloway (1985) designation of type species for new genus Antitrisuloides. It is cited as catocalina Moore, with no mention of genus or date, see: https://books.google.co.nz/books?redir_esc=y&id=MvtNAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&qÊtocalinaHaving said that, it is implied to be Trisuloides catocalina Moore, on p. 162, with no search results in the publication for Tambana catocalina. This does suggest a problem and a potential misidentification of type species, made worse by the apparent homonymy with Tambana catocalina Moore, 1882 being incorrectly referred to in some literature as Trisuloides catocalina (Moore, 1882), not to be confused with Trisuloides catocalina Moore, 1883. A bit of a mess!Stephen
>Â  Â  Â  On Saturday, 13 November 2021, 05:52:04 pm NZDT, Nick Grishin via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>Â  
>Â  Markku,
> 
> First, huge thanks for maintaining your wonderful website! There is
> nothing else like it, it is really convenient, and speeds up research
> linking names to publications. Much grateful.
> 
>> https: //www.mothsofborneo.com/part-14/pantheinae/pantheinae_2_1.php
> 
> Pictures show *Tambana catocalina* Moore, 1882.
> 
> The text references *Trisuloides catocalina* Moore, 1883,
> but gives *Trisuloides polyphaenaria* Warren, 1912 as its synonym,
> which is a synonym of *Tambana catocalina* Moore, 1882 instead.
> 
> Therefore, "1883, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1883: 17" is probably a *lapsus
> calami*.
> 
> If this is so, then the type species of *Antitrisuloides* is
> *Tambana catocalina* Moore, 1882 and
> NOT *Trisuloides catocalina* Moore, 1883
> 
> An alternative interpretation could be "misidentified type species",
> check out Art. 70.3.
> https://code.iczn.org/types-in-the-genus-group/article-70-identification-of-the-type-species/
> 
> I have not studied the 2011 paper, maybe they discussed this, n
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>Â  Â  
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> 
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

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