[Taxacom] [iczn-list] "nude" Coccinellid genera?

Neal Evenhuis neale at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Mar 1 14:46:12 CST 2013

Those are all available names, Doug.

Here's the citation:
Miyatake, Mutsuo. 1994. Revisional studies on Asian genera of the subfamily Sticholotidinae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Memoirs of the College of Agriculture, Ehime University 38(2). [Entomological Series No. 8], 223-293.

It's just one of the many Asian articles missed by Zoological Record in the mid to late 1990s and therefore thought to not exist.



On 3/1/13 9:27 AM, "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>> scribbled the following tidbit:

I recieved an inquiry yesterday regarding a recent (2012) checklist
of the world genera of Coccinellidae, and was asked if I could
confirm the existence of several names included therein. One of them,
"Cladia Mulsant 1850", appears to be a typo for "Cladis", so that one
was easy - and two others I found in the Nomenclator Zoologicus. But
there are several names listed that have no author and/or no year
indicated, and appear to be nomina nuda; I can find no evidence
online that anyone has ever published their descriptions, and would
appreciate any confirmation anyone here might offer. Specifically:

Sulcolotis Miyatake

This might seem to be a pretty trivial thing, except for two issues
this case raises, and aside from soliciting help from folks to see if
these names DO exist, I'd like to mention these issues:

(1) All four of these names have propagated online, and apparently
first appeared in Wikipedia and Wikispecies, added by someone who had
a copy of the 2012 checklist. Because they appear in those sources,
the names are spreading, and any one of them will now generate
several thousand hits on Google - not one of them indicating a place
where they were published.
(2) This is a BRAND NEW checklist, and these authors apparently
included names that they did not bother to confirm were genuine. How
can one justify publishing a checklist containing over 350 genera and
tribal names, all carefully researched and given with authors, years,
and synonymies, and then ALSO include a bunch that have (at worst)
never been published, or (at best) are presented without proper
citation? Should modern authors and editors not hold to higher
standards than those from the 1800's?

The combined effect is that in the Internet Era, what used to be a
tiny error that only maybe a dozen people in the world ever came
across, now can be spread worldwide and find its way into thousands
of virtual crevices from which it might never be extracted even if
someone comes along later and fixes it. I point this out as yet
another example showing the necessity of quality control in taxonomy,
and why some folks such as myself are pushing to make registration of
names mandatory in the future.

I also noticed, in this checklist, that some genera have been coined
using personal names, including "Robert", "Roger", "Nat", and
"Guillermo". While not prohibited by the Code, these examples
certainly dance along the edge of the rules, and - if nothing else -
consider how much fun they will be for anyone who wants to do a
Google search for them in the future. I actually do appreciate
scientific names that are playful and humorous, but naming a genus
"Robert" is doing no one any favors.


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
iczn-list mailing list
iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>

This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list