Taxacom: A nomenclatural puzzle - genus Galea Meyen, 1833 (mammal), preoccupied or not?

[Tony Rees]

Thanks to all who contributed answers to this topic - my current compiled
information for name=Galea (multiple instances) is here:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Faphia.php%3Fp%3Dtaxlist%26searchpar%3D0%26tComp%3Dis%26tName%3DGalea%26action%3Dsearch&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C535dd2e043624a1819f608dad6efa4ca%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638058621996169023%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lTxBFps55WLzJc%2BGCR5%2FXh4ysQz7Sp%2B4BLWdonKMgVU%3D&reserved=0

If the link does not work (or you do not wish to follow it!) it gives the
following names (hyperlinks omitted):

Galea Cuvier, 1817 ? accepted as Echinocorys Leske, 1778 ? [Family:
Echinocorythidae, Phylum: Echinodermata]
Galea D. Maier, 1959 ? accepted as Chiropteridium H. Gocht, 1960 ? [Family:
Areoligeraceae, Phylum: Miozoa]
Galea Kristan, 1957 ? accepted as Galeanella Kristan, 1958 ? [Family:
Milioliporidae, Phylum: Retaria]
Galea Meuschen, 1787 (unaccepted > unavailable name) [Family: , Phylum:
Echinodermata]
Galea Meyen, 1833 [Family: Caviidae, Phylum: Chordata]
Galea M?rch, 1852 accepted as Tonna Br?nnich, 1771 [Family: Tonnidae,
Phylum: Mollusca]
Galea Smith, 1817 ? accepted as Echinocorys Leske, 1778 ? [Family:
Echinocorythidae, Phylum: Echinodermata]

As mentioned earlier, Galea Cuvier, 1817 was stated to be based on a
pre-Linnean name by Klein in Echinodermata, and is unavailable being listed
only in synonymy. It turns out that Klein established a different instance
of Galea as well, in Mollusca, which is the basis for M?rch's 1852 listing,
but this was once again listed on in synonymy and is thus also unavailable,
as well as being a later homonym.

Curiously, there is no valid botanical genus name Galea, although there
potentially could be (also in bacteria!). Galea D. Maier, 1959, a
dinoflagellate, is in a family (Areoligeraceae) presently treated under the
botanical Code, however when this name was established it was treated as a
zoological genus where it is definitely preoccupied, so in botany it is
also illegitimate and a different name is used i.e. Chiropteridium, refer
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdinoflaj.smu.ca%2Fdinoflaj3%2Findex.php%2FChiropteridium&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C535dd2e043624a1819f608dad6efa4ca%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638058621996169023%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p8%2Bkc%2FHgP5K3%2B54jtyVuj0Fh7jLYJO1oRkjzm%2FzSlkA%3D&reserved=0 .

The only missing info I am currently aware of is whether Meuschen's 1787
(ex Klein) name was based on an extant or fossil specimen - echinoderm
fossils were presumably known at that time and quite likely included in
collections with names. Neave and/or elsewhere has Cuvier's and Smith's
names (?also ex Kein) flagged as fossil I think, so maybe Meuschen's would
be the same?

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C535dd2e043624a1819f608dad6efa4ca%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638058621996169023%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5MOaAwyg0fkF3%2BWx9tkEPMXHdXziz2mh4paH74DnDXo%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C535dd2e043624a1819f608dad6efa4ca%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638058621996169023%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qJ8eqaSeBN%2Fc9zbpnDQqtAVYge6s92ptmGizZoe7wdo%3D&reserved=0