[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Thomas Pape tpape at snm.ku.dk
Sat Oct 4 05:59:01 CDT 2014


Dear Rudy and Arnaud,

You mention that:   "In 1953 J. Denis describes (in French) three species in a genus ‘Acanthinozodium’ without designating a type species."
Article 13.3 requires that a new genus-group name proposed after 1930 is "accompanied by the fixation of a type species in the original publication" unless it is a new replacement name. Therefore, ‘Acanthinozodium’ is not made available by Denis (1953).

When Denis (1966) describes Acanthinozodium spinosum and mentions that this should have been the type species, and GIVEN that there is a description of the genus-group taxon Acanthinozodium (or a reference to one), then Acanthinozodium is made available from that work and with those species that Denis (1966) included within it, and Acanthinozodium spinosum is the type species by original designation. Denis' use of "son type aurait dû être" is somewhat problematical, because Article 67.5.3 excludes designations that are "made in an ambiguous or conditional manner". In my opinion, however, Denis (1966) is unambiguously expressing his intent to fix Acanthinozodium spinosum as the type species.

/Thomas

POSTSCRIPT:   Be careful to use the terms "valid" and "available" as defined by the Code, and remember that an available name may be either valid or invalid.
The terms are explained by the Code Glossary as follows:

valid name
   The correct name for a taxonomic taxon, i.e. the oldest potentially valid name of a name-bearing type which falls within an author's concept of the taxon (but see under Principle of Priority).
valid nomenclatural act
   One that is to be accepted under the provisions of the Code (i.e. the earliest available nomenclatural act, relevant to a particular name or nominal taxon, which does not contravene any provision of the Code).

available nomenclatural act
   One that is published in an available work.
available name
   A scientific name applied to an animal taxon that is not excluded under Article 1.3 and that conforms to the provisions of Articles 10 to 20.





-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of JOCQUE Rudy
Sent: 4. oktober 2014 11:52
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Nomenclatorial problem

The problem concerns a spider genus in the family Zodariidae.


In 1953 J. Denis describes (in French) three species in a genus ‘Acanthinozodium’ without designating a type species. He does not do this because the publication in which he wanted to describe the genus is greatly delayed and only appears in 1966. In the latter paper he describes Acanthinozodium spinosum and mentions that this should have been the type species “Le genre Acantinozodium est intermédiaire entre les Diores et les Zodarium: son type aurait dû être A. spinulosum : mais par suite du retard apporté à la publication de cette etude, j’ai été amené à en donner une description très sommaire ” (the 1953 paper).
In 1991, in a revision of the family, I considered Acanthinozodium as a valid genus and designated the first species described in the 1953 paper (A. cirrisulcatum) as the type species.  In the same paper the genus was considered a senior synonym of Zodariellum Andreeva & Tyschenko, 1968 described in Cyrillic. This paper is full of nomenclatorial mistakes e.g.. heading Lodariellum instead of Zodariellum; Z. continentalis is mentioned in the English abstract as belonging to the three new Zodarion species in the paper but described in Zodariellum, the authorsip of the taxa changes within the paper,  etc).
In 2001 Marusik & Koponen consider Acanthinozodium a nomen nudum because no type species was designated at the first publication of the name. As a result, all species considered congeneric with Acanthinozodium are now in Zodariellum.
The main problem is that the inclusion of these species was based on the palpal characters of “Z. continentalis” which is in fact a Zodarion.
In the meantime we have found some characters that allow us to define Acanthinozodium more precisely and remove Zodariellum from its synonymy. The main question to be solved though is whether Acanthinozodium is valid.
See
( http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/genus/3889/Zodariellum)
for a short outline of the problem.


We would appreciate your comments.

Rudy Jocqué & Arnaud Henrard

Royal Museum for Central Africa
Tervuren - Belgium
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list