[Taxacom] parentheses (or not) on Nemophora tyriochrysa Meyrick, 1935
fwelter at gwdg.de
Wed Aug 23 12:45:47 CDT 2017
It is very important to look closely at the classification used in early
zoological publications, because it was sometimes usual to combine the
specific name with the subgenus, not with the genus. If you read a copy
of the species description only, it is easy to overlook that the
original combination cited the subgenus.
An example is [Denis & Schiffermueller] 1775, with 700 new names of
lepidopterans, almost all were cited with the subgenus.
Am 23.08.2017 um 19:05 schrieb David Campbell:
> Regrettably, there are several instances where the original genus usage is
> less clear than might be thought. I've encountered various publications
> from the late 1800's and early 1900's where a species is listed in a plate
> caption or in text as Aus bus, but if you read through the text (which may
> require going back some pages), it turns out that the author regarded Aus
> as a subgenus of Cus. Thus, the actual original name for the organism was
> Cus (Aus) bus, and if Aus is treated as a full genus, the author's name
> should be in parentheses.
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
>> Dear Soowon Cho,
>> Parentheses must be used if Nemotois was the original genus.
>> Nemophora Hoffmannsegg, 1798 and Nemotois Huebner, 1825 are different
>> genera. Nemotois is definitely not a misspelling of Nemophora. So if "N."
>> means Nemotois, parentheses must be used.
>> Lepidopterists deviate from the Code only in the question of gender
>> agreement, not in the other rules.
>> The meaning of "N." much be checked in the original source. Either it is
>> Nemotois or it is Nemophora. Usually such taxonomic papers are clear. I
>> have no access to the original source. If you do not understand the German
>> and you suspect the solution is somewhere hidden inside the text, you can
>> send me a scan and I can help you finding it out.
>> Best regards
>> Francisco Welter-Schultes
>> Am 23.08.2017 um 06:28 schrieb Soowon Cho:
>>> Dear members,
>>> While I am working on some species of Korean Adelidae, I found *Nemophora
>>> tyriochrysa* was first described as *Nemotois tyriochrysa* by Meyrick in
>>> 1935. However, the name is currently known as *Nemophora tyriochrysa*
>>> Meyrick, 1935, not as *Nemophora tyriochrysa* (Meyrick, 1935). I looked at
>>> the paper and found there is a section for Adelidae beginning from page 93
>>> and the first species briefly described is "*Nemotois raddei* REB." but
>>> rest species are listed as "*N. x*" instead of "*Nemotois x*" and one of
>>> them is "*N. tyriochrysa* n. sp." (on p. 94).
>>> The paper is as follows:
>>> A. Caradja, E. Meyrick
>>> Materialien zu einer Microlepidopteren fauna der Chinesischen Provinzen
>>> Kiangsu, Chekiang und Hunan
>>> Friedländer in Komm, Berlin, Germany (1935)
>>> [in German]
>>> My question is: shouldn't we consider the abbreviated "*N.*" is in fact "
>>> *Nemotois*", therefore *Nemophora tyriochrysa* should be with the author
>>> name in parentheses? If not, where can I find the ICZN rule on this? Maybe
>>> I am not familiar enough with the nomenclatural rules.
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom