Hendrik.Segers at RUG.AC.BE
Tue Jul 25 09:28:42 CDT 1995
Regarding the name Rhynchobodo, I would interprete the relevant ICZN
articles as follows:
1) Lackey's Rhynchobodo appears to be an unavailable 'incorrect
subsequent spelling' (see Art. 33 (a), (c))
2) However, Brugerolle's (1985) use of Rhynchobodo is different.
At least, it is intentional (Art 33 (b)(i): ... two or more names in the
same work ... treated in a similar way), the name thereby becomes
available: Rhynchobodo Brugerolle, 1985 (see also Art. 50). The type
species of this genus, as inferred by Brugerolle, appears
to be Rhynchobodo agilis (Lackey).
In fact, Brugerolle's use of Rhyhchobodo can hardly be considered a
mere unjustified emendation, considering the taxonomic relevance he
attributes to it.
3) Vors (1992) 'redescribed' the genus, which has no nomenclatural
consequences. However, he is incorrect in ascribing Rhynchobodo to
Lackey (see Art 11) Rhynchobodo Lackey, 1940 is an unavailable name,
Rhynchobodo Brugerolle is. They are not homonymous, see Art. 54). Vors'
fixation of a C. taeniata as type species appears incorrect.
The wasp case appears similar.
Hope my interpretation of the code is acceptable,
and as far as can be judged from the forwarded summary of the cases...
Lab. of Animal Ecology, Zoogeography and Nature Conservation
University of Gent, Belgium.
More information about the Taxacom