valid genus or nomen nudum?

Andy Deans adeans at LIFE.UIUC.EDU
Wed May 29 14:21:25 CDT 2002

Hi all,

I have a technical ICZN question concerning the evaniid (Hymenoptera) genus
Evaniella as described by Bradley in 1905.  Here is the text all subsequent
papers (including Bradley’s later papers) refer to as the original generic

“Evania neomexicana and E. californica belong to a new genus which I shall
shortly describe under the name Evaniella.  Here also belongs and stands as
the type the species which Dr. Ashmead (1901) calls unicolor, Say, but is
not that species.  Say’s description applies to E. appendigaster, which
could easily have spread into the interior with the early settlers,
inasmuch as it is parasitic on cockroaches.”

This does not sound like a valid description to me, but rather a nomen
nudum.  Bradley transfers two described species (Evania neomexicana Ashmead
and Evania californica Ashmead) to the new genus Evaniella, but he
designates a type species which is not even described until 1908 –
Evaniella semaeoda Bradley.  We don’t find out until Bradley’s 1908 paper
that this is the species Ashmead thought was Evania unicolor.

In 1908 Bradley describes the genus in a more typical fashion with a
detailed morphological report, key to species, description of the new
species E. semaeoda, and mention of that species as the type for the
genus.  He refers to his 1905 paper as the original description though.

Any ideas?  Thanks!


Ashmead, W. H.  1901.  Canadian Entomologist 33: 302-4.
Bradley, J. C.  1905.  Canadian Entomologist 37: 63-64.
Bradley, J. C. 1908. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 34: 101-194.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list