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

[Taxacom] type species of Antitrisuloides Holloway, 1985 ?

Nick Grishin grishin at chop.swmed.edu
Thu Nov 18 22:11:54 CST 2021 

> I can agree Stephen with that (at least I cannot disagree), but how 
> should we treat a species which was cited by a name that did not 
> unambiguously indicate which species was actually meant? I assume that 
> the original 1985 source gave so much information to determine with 
> certainty which one of the two catocalinas was meant, but what if not? 
> How would you treat such a case? First Reviser? Or "none was included"?

Each case is different, but unless there are some issues to argue 
otherwise, I would default to the First Reviser (e.g., misidentified type 
species). I think it serves stability better. The ultimate case would be 
two homonyms considers synonyms later shown to denote distinct species 
(what if in different genera?). Although I don't know such examples, n



>
> Best wishes
> Francisco
>
> Am 14.11.2021 um 09:24 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
>>    Francisco,I have to disagree in that "doubtfully included" has nothing
>>    to do with ambiguous. A species id doubtfully included in a new genus if
>>    the author indicates that there is doubt about its inclusion in the new
>>    genus. Obviously, it cannot therefore be considered the type species. In
>>    the present case, the author was certain (not doubtful) that the species
>>    was included in the new genus, there is just some ambiguity about which
>>    species exactly the author was certain about!Cheers, Stephen
>>       On Sunday, 14 November 2021, 03:49:10 pm NZDT, Francisco
>>       Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:
>>
>>    Stephen,
>>  Thank you for this research. I agree that the publication must be
>>  considered as a whole.
>>
>>  The cited combination Antitrisuloides catocalina (Moore) would allow to
>>  regard the requirement of Art. 67.2.1 "cited by an available name" as
>>  met. Citation of the original genus is not a requirement. I overlooked
>>  that. Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>>  If the name was doubtfully included (Art. 67.2.5), it cannot be
>>  considered an originally included species. Ambiguous should be contained
>>  in the term "doubtful".
>>  Indeed this should depend on the context. If it is clear from the
>>  taxonomic context (description etc.) which one of the two catocalinas
>>  was meant, then the type fixation should stand, original designation.
>>
>>  Best wishes
>>  Francisco
>>
>>  Am 13.11.2021 um 22:38 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
>> >      PS2: So Moths of Borneo has got it all 
>> >    wrong! https://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-14/pantheinae/pantheinae_2_1.php
>> >              On Sunday, 14 November 2021, 10:31:31 am NZDT, Stephen 
>> >        Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>> > 
>> >      PS: The main problem here is that we have
>> >  Trisuloides catocalina (Moore, 1882) (Original combination: Tambana 
>> >  catocalina Moore, 1882) andTrisuloides catocalina Moore, 1883
>> > 
>> >  One of these is now Antitrisuloides catocalina (Moore), whereas the 
>> >  other seems to be considered to be a true Trisuloides
>> >  According to Behounek, Han & Kononenko (2011: abstract), [quote]The 
>> >  name Trisuloides catocalina Moore, 1883 stat. rev. is recognized as 
>> >  valid, not a synonym of Trisuloides sericea Butler, 1881 and not a 
>> >  homonym of Tambana catocalina Moore, 1882 (currently placed 
>> >  in Antitrisuloides Holloway, 1985)[unquote]
>> >  The problem is trying to confirm that Holloway (1985) was talking 
>> >  about Tambana catocalina Moore, 1882, rather than 
>> >  about Trisuloides catocalina Moore, 1883! If I do a search on Holloway's 
>> >  article on Google book snippets for Tambana, I get no relevant result. 
>> >  However, Trisuloides catocalina Moore, 1883 seems to have been 
>> >  considered to be an invalid synonym at the time of Holloway (1985), not 
>> >  reinstated as valid until Behounek, Han & Kononenko (2011, 
>> >  above), leaving Tambana catocalina Moore, 1882 as the only option for 
>> >  type species of Antitrisuloides, which seems to be in line with all the 
>> >  relevant literature.
>> >  Both genera presumably belong to subfamily Pantheinae?
>> >  Stephen
>> >              On Sunday, 14 November 2021, 09:59:25 am NZDT, Stephen 
>> >        Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>> > 
>> >          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&q=catocalinaHaving 
>> > >      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
>> > >                  On Saturday, 13 November 2021, 05:52:04 pm NZDT, Nick 
>> > >          Grishin via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > >          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.
>> > > 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >  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.
>> > 
>>> _______________________________________________
>> >  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.
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list