[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Laurent Raty l.raty at skynet.be
Sun Oct 5 03:33:13 CDT 2014


The whole text would be better, but in the meantime, we still have this:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=jucwVMq1KoHlaveagbgI&id=ww4hAQAAIAAJ&q=Acanthinozodium
http://books.google.com/books?ei=jucwVMq1KoHlaveagbgI&id=ww4hAQAAIAAJ&q=Diores+Zodarium
http://books.google.com/books?ei=jucwVMq1KoHlaveagbgI&id=ww4hAQAAIAAJ&q=descroption+sommaire
http://books.google.com/books?ei=jucwVMq1KoHlaveagbgI&id=ww4hAQAAIAAJ&q=Zodariides+recueillis

This allows to see that:
- the 1966 spelling is undoubtedly Acanthinozodium.
- the 1966 paper lists the first paper as from 1952 (same as in WSC); 
this paper is referenced in the text in association to the genus name 
(p.121: "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 étude, j’ai été amené à en 
donner une description très sommaire (1952) pour" [...?]) and is listed 
in the bibliography (p.136).
The genus also seems to have included only A. spinulosum in this 
publication (original monotypy; see also 
http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/refincluded/3793 ).

OTOH, Denis (1959) is titled "Description de *deux* zodariides 
(Aranéides) nouveaux du Sahara" and, according to 
http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/refincluded/3317 , these two species were named 
Acanthinozodium sahariense and Acanthinozodium bicoloripes. If this is 
correct, this paper certainly did not make the genus available with a 
type fixed by monotypy.

Laurent -


On 10/05/2014 12:57 AM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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