[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

JOCQUE Rudy rudy.jocque at africamuseum.be
Mon Oct 6 13:47:23 CDT 2014


Many thanks for the comments. 

The outcome is apparently as follows: 

Acanthinozodium is available and valid. Its type species is A. sericeum Denis, 1956. 
Before the intended type species A. spinulosum was described by Denis, 1966, no other authors used the name. Denis published three other papers with Acanthinozodium in it  before that (1953, 1956 and 1959). The first one contained two species and one subspecies of the genus, the second only one: A. sericeum, the third one three. A. sericeum thus becomes the type species by monotypy and combined description. This is very convenient as that species is known from both sexes and its types have been traced whereas those of A. spinulosum, only known from females, could not be found and are probably lost.  

Ciao, 

Rudy

Rudy JOCQUÉ
Department of Zoology
Royal Museum for Central Africa
Leuvense steenweg 13
B-3080 Tervuren
Belgium
Tel x 32 2 7695410

________________________________________
Van: Taxacom [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] namens Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Verzonden: zondag 5 oktober 2014 21:48
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Laurent Raty
Onderwerp: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

> If this is correct, this paper certainly did not make the genus available with a type fixed by monotypy<
True, but that was just an example. The important point is that all works between 1952 and 1966 which mention the genus need to be checked for possible availability of the genus. I agree that, if there are none, then the genus can be understood as available from Denis (1966)

Cheers,

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 5/10/14, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Sunday, 5 October, 2014, 9:33 PM

 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.eduhttp://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.
 >

 _______________________________________________
 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