[Taxacom] WTaxa ...: PS
ShockleyF at si.edu
Mon Aug 1 11:50:25 CDT 2011
For the record, Doug is correct. The USNM type photo database uses the original combination, but the current valid name was also included (but perhaps not used) when uploading into the EoL system (at least in this case) since I'm the one that originally gathered it and submitted it as part of a contract. In fact, if you click on the link to "View Image Source" you go to the record in our database, which DOES include the correct valid name, under the woefully unsatisfactory label "Other Identifications". The EoL page was "constructed" without my input, using several previous catalogues that I had generated. I'm working with them directly now and will resolve this problem as soon as possible.
The online catalogue Doug referred to is completely independent and not associated with me or any other endo worker. The record for Gerstaeckerus augustefasciatus (Pic, 1940:11) [China][=Engonius augustefasciatus Pic, 1940] is an error (both in placement and spelling). The specific epithet angustefasciatus has never been associated with the genus Gerstaeckerus. It was moved along with several other species directly to Sinocymbachus by Strohecker and Chujo, 1970. Tomaszewska (2005) makes no mention of this species. She moved all remaining Engonius species (the endos not already moved by Strohecker) to the nomen novum Gerstaeckerus to correct the homonym problem.
The record for Sinocymbachus angustefasciatus (Pic, 1940:11) [Szechuan][=Engonius angustefasciatus Pic, 1940] is correct (and appears as such in my catalogue of endos of the world). A copy of my catalogue was provided to the original owner of that other site, but given the overly ambitious intended scope of that "Biology Catalogue" of all life on earth, extant and fossil, it might have been overlooked.
F.W. Shockley, Ph.D.
Department of Entomology
National Museum of Natural History
P.O. Box 37012, MRC 165
Washington, DC 20013-7012
Tel (office): 202-633-0982
Fax (office): 202-786-2894
Mobile (personal): 703-789-4924
Email: ShockleyF at si.edu
From: Doug Yanega [mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 8:33 PM
To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] WTaxa ...: PS
>PS: you might also wanna check this out for a laugh!
That is the result of the USNM type photo database using the original
combination, rather than the valid name. That Endomychid *was*
described as Engonius angustefasciatus by Pic, even though the older
genus name "Engonius" is an Oxycorynine (the Endomychid name was a
homonym). Homonyms happen, and are hard for automated systems to
disambiguate. There is obviously a further problem if an electronic
resource only links to valid names, and people put other things
online that do not use the valid names, but this sort of error is
What's "funny" is that the online catalogue of Endomychidae
lists that same Pic name under two different genera, with a
misspelled epithet in one case. That is:
Gerstaeckerus augustefasciatus (Pic, 1940:11) [China]
[=Engonius augustefasciatus Pic, 1940]
appears in one place, and
Sinocymbachus angustefasciatus (Pic, 1940:11) [Szechuan]
[=Engonius angustefasciatus Pic, 1940]
elsewhere. The latter is correct, so one has to wonder about the
former catalogue record, as to whether it appeared that way in the
2005 paper which created the genus Gerstaeckerus as a replacement for
Engonius, or whether Pic actually named two species that differed
only by one letter on the same page. I sorta doubt the latter.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
More information about the Taxacom