[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 4 17:46:25 CDT 2014
Just to clarify something, the PDF on World Spider Catalog of the "1953" paper you refer to below is dated 1950, and the date cited in the Catalog is 1952! Unless there is good evidence to the contrary, the 1950 date must be accepted. In that paper, Denis tags his new species with n. sp., but attributes the genus to Denis, 1950. This suggests to me that the genus may have been described in an earlier 1950 paper, but this is presumably the 1966 paper, right? In the quote you give below, the spelling is Acantinozodium, not Acanthinozodium. Is that a mistake by you? If not, then that might be the correct original spelling of Acantinozodium Denis, 1966. From your quote, Denis (1966) does not explicitly refer to the "1953" publication (that seems to be an inference imposed by you). So, that can't really be said to constitute a bibliographic reference to the "1953" paper. So, it all depends on whether Denis (1966) did enough to make the genus name available
independently of the "1953" paper, and we can't tell that from what you have written! So, the valid name of the genus could actually be Acanthinozodium Jocque, 1991, making it a junior synonym of Zodariellum. We really need to see a PDF of Denis (1966).
On Sat, 4/10/14, JOCQUE Rudy <rudy.jocque at africamuseum.be> wrote:
Subject: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Saturday, 4 October, 2014, 10:52 PM
The problem concerns a spider genus in the family
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
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
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.
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
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