[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 4 17:57:12 CDT 2014


As a further complication, if anyone (such as Denis, 1959) used the name Acanthinozodium before 1966, and included a single species in it, then the name may have been made available therein (e.g. Acanthinozodium Denis, 1959, with type species Acanthinozodium bicoloripes Denis 1959, by monotypy and combined description). We need to see PDFs of all papers which use the name Acanthinozodium before 1966!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 5/10/14, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "JOCQUE Rudy" <rudy.jocque at africamuseum.be>
 Cc: tpape at snm.ku.dk, dyanega at ucr.edu
 Received: Sunday, 5 October, 2014, 11:46 AM
 
 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).
 
 Stephen
 
 --------------------------------------------
 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
  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