[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Stephen Thorpe 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
 Nomenclatorial problem
 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
 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
 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.
 ( 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
 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