Unraveling the nomenclatural puzzle of the collared and white-lipped peccaries (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla, Tayassuidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4851 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-80
Author(s):  
LUIS E. ACOSTA ◽  
GUILHERME S. T. GARBINO ◽  
GERMÁN M. GASPARINI ◽  
RODRIGO PARISI DUTRA
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Type Species ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Junior Synonym ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Valid Genus ◽  
History Of ◽  
Single Genus ◽  
Collared Peccary

The nomenclatural history of the collared and white-lipped peccaries, two well-recognized taxonomic entities, has been confusing. From the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th century, several genera were created, most of them without an explicit designation of type species. Due to differing opinions as to whether the two species should be included in a single genus or, if separate genera were recognized, which generic name should be applied to each of the two taxa, the validity of generic and specific names oscillated until even recently. This paper aims to solve these nomenclatural issues by reviewing the different taxonomic arrangements of these two peccaries and applying appropriately the International Code on Zoological Nomenclature. We contend that the valid generic name for the white-lipped peccary is Tayassu Fischer, 1814 (type Sus pecari Link, 1795), while Dicotyles Cuvier, 1816 (type Dicotyles torquatus Cuvier, 1816) is the valid genus for the collared peccary, with Pecari Reichenbach, 1835 as its junior synonym. 

scholarly journals One name to rule them all: Belinurus trilobitoides (Buckland, ) is senior synonym to fourteen named species

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Lamsdell
Keyword(s):  
Type Species ◽  
New Genus ◽  
Distinct Species ◽  
Junior Synonym ◽  
International Commission ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Senior Synonym ◽  
Horseshoe Crabs ◽  
The Subject

One of the oldest fossil horseshoe crabs figured in the literature is Entomolithus lunatus Martin, 1809, a Carboniferous species included in his Petrificata Derbiensia. While the species has generally been included within the genus Belinurus Bronn, 1839, it was recently used as the type species of the new genus Parabelinurus Lamsdell, 2020. However, recent investigation as to the appropriate authority for Belinurus (see Lamsdell and Clapham, 2021) revealed that all the names in Petrificata Derbiensia were suppressed in Opinion 231 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1954) for being consistently nonbinomial under Article 11.4 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999). Despite the validation of several species names for anthozoans, brachiopods, and cephalopods described in Petrificata Derbiensia in subsequent rulings (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1956a, b), Belinurus lunatus has not been the subject of any subsequent Commission ruling or opinion, and so its use in Petrificata Derbiensia remains suppressed. The Belinurus lunatus species name was used in several subsequent publications during the 1800s, none of which made the name available under ICZN article 11.5; Parkinson (1811) is also suppressed for being nonbinomial, while Woodward (1830), Buckland (1837), Bronn (1839), and Baily (1859) refer to the species only as a synonym of Belinurus trilobitoides (Buckland, 1837) through citation to the suppressed Pretificata Derbiensia. The first author to make Belinurus lunatus an available name was Baldwin (1905), who used the name in reference to a new figured specimen from Sparth Bottoms, Rochdale, UK, but again as an explicit junior synonym of Belinurus trilobitoides (Buckland, 1837). Therefore, it was not until Eller (1938) treated B. lunatus as a distinct species from B. trilobitoides that B. lunatus became an available name as per ICZN Article 11.6.1 under the authorship of Baldwin (1905) following ICZN Article 50.7.

Bicarinellata a new name for Bicarinella Rode, Lieberman, and Rowell, 2003 (Arthopoda, Bradoriida) preoccupied by Bicarinella Waterhouse, 1966 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and Bicarinella Akopyan, 1976 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)

2008 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 1220-1220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alycia L. Stigall
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Late Cretaceous ◽  
Type Species ◽  
East Antarctica ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Early Cambrian ◽  
International Code ◽  
New Name ◽  
Valid Genus ◽  
The One

The genus Bicarinella Rode et al., 2003 was erected for a new hipponicharionid bradoriid species described from the early Cambrian of East Antarctica, characterized by a subtriangular carapace with prominent anterior and posterior lobes developed as two distinctive, sharp ridges (bi = two, carina = ridges). Unfortunately, the name Bicarinella is preoccupied by two different gastropod genera: Bicarinella Waterhouse 1966, a Permian gastropod from New Zealand and Australia, and Bicarinella Akopyan 1976, a gastropod from Late Cretaceous strata of Armenia, Serbia, Romania, Tajikistan, and Egypt (Mennessier, 1994; Banjac, 1998; Pana, 1998). Mennessier (1994) transferred Bicarinella Akopyan, 1976 from its original status as an independent taxon to a subgenus of Pseudomesalia Douvillé 1916, but subsequent workers have continued to consider Bicarinella a valid genus (Pena, 1998; Banjac, 1998). Due to the preoccupation, the bradoriid genus is herein renamed in accordance with the requirement of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999, article 60). It is also noted here that the one of the two distinct gastropod genera should be renamed. The name Bicarinellata (bi = two, carina = ridges) is proposed as a replacement name for Bicarinella Rode et al., 2003. This name retains the original prefixes to preserve taxonomic stability as much as possible. The type species of Bicarinellata is B. evansi by original designation (Rode et al., 2003).

Nomenclatural clarification on some Southern African monkey beetle genera (Scarabaeidae: Hopliini: Pachycnemina)

Zootaxa ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4543 (1) ◽  
pp. 137
Author(s):  
MARIO CUPELLO ◽  
CIBELE STRAMARE RIBEIRO-COSTA
Keyword(s):  
Type Species ◽  
Junior Synonym ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Current Usage

After an extensive revision of the literature, we come to the following conclusions concerning the nomenclature of Southern African monkey beetles of the subtribe Pachycnemina: firstly, the current usage of the nominal subgenus Pachycnemula Schein, 1959 for a subgenus taxon different from Pachycnema s. str. Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Audinet-Serville, 1828 is incorrect since both names share the same type species—Melolontha crassipes Fabricius, 1775—and are therefore objective synonyms. Hence, here we invalidate Pachycnemula and establish the new nominal subgenus Macacoplia Cupello & Ribeiro-Costa to denote the subgenus taxon currently known as Pachycnema (Pachycnemula). Secondly, we discuss the different spellings of the nominal genus Lepithrix Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Audinet-Serville, 1828, which was originally established as Lepitrix but emended to Lepithrix in 1913 by Dalla Torre. Although originally an unjustified emendation, the Lepithrix spelling is currently in prevailing usage and therefore should be deemed a justified emendation according to Article 33.2.3.1 of the current edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. That being so, it becomes necessary to acknowledge the homonymy between Lepithrix Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Audinet-Serville and its junior homonym Lepithrix Neitner, 1857, current junior synonym of Loxoncus Schmidt-Göbel, 1846 (Carabidae: Harpalinae: Harpalini: Stenolophina). 

A brief history of the generic classification of the Trochilini (Aves: Trochilidae): the chaos of the past and problems to be resolved

Zootaxa ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 4269 (3) ◽  
pp. 396
Author(s):  
F. GARY STILES ◽  
VITOR DE Q. PIACENTINI ◽  
J. V. REMSEN, JR.
Keyword(s):  
Type Species ◽  
Species Distributions ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Genetic Studies ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
Artistic Quality

The generic classification of the Trochilidae is unusually complicated because early authors, faced with a deluge of specimens with little or no data, often based species and genus names on superficial plumage characters derived from figured plates of varying artistic quality and reproduction. Working independently and with little knowledge of species distributions and with the fixation of type species for genera inconsistent or ignored, these authors produced a bewildering array of generic synonyms. The generic nomenclature of the largest and most recently derived clade of hummingbirds, the tribe Trochilini or “emeralds”, presents an unusually tangled web. Here we review the history of hummingbird generic nomenclature from Linnaeus to the present, giving detailed attention to two generic names that epitomize this confusion: Amazilia (the variety of spellings, supposed type species and circumscriptions makes for an especially complicated tangle) and Leucippus (for which nearly every successive author has advocated a different circumscription). Through application of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, this review lays the foundation for a revision of the generic nomenclature of the emeralds to bring it into conformity with recent genetic studies elucidating the phylogeny of this clade.

Rediscovered syntypes of Procrangonyx japonicus, with nomenclatural consideration of some crangonyctoidean subterranean amphipods (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Allocrangonyctidae, Niphargidae, Pseudocrangonyctidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4532 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
TAKAFUMI NAKANO ◽  
KO TOMIKAWA ◽  
MARK J. GRYGIER
Keyword(s):  
Type Species ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
Amphipod Species ◽  
Taxonomic Distinctness ◽  
International Code ◽  
Original Publication ◽  
History Of ◽  
University Museum ◽  
Far Eastern

Two missing syntypes of the Japanese subterranean amphipod Procrangonyx japonicus (Uéno, 1930), the type species of Procrangonyx Schellenberg, 1934, were rediscovered in the collections of the Kyoto University Museum. The morphology of uropod 3, which has been considered the principal diagnostic character of the genus, is redescribed on the basis of one of the syntypes, and the nomenclatural history of the generic names Procrangonyx and Eocrangonyx Schellenberg, 1937 (corrected from 1936) for some Far-Eastern subterranean amphipod species is reviewed. Owing to confusion between the terms “type fixation” and “type designation”—the latter being just one means of accomplishing the former—the view that Procrangonyx is unavailable and invalid has prevailed in recent literature. Procrangonyx was indeed proposed after 1930 with no type species “designation”, but under Articles 67.2.1 and 68.3 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Eucrangonyx japonicus Uéno, 1930 was “fixed” as its type species by monotypy in the original publication. Since a diagnosis of the genus was also provided in the same work, Procrangonyx is available under Article 13.3 of the Code. However, because endopodal segmentation of uropod 3 proves to be variable in P. japonicus, doubt is thrown on the taxonomic distinctness of Procrangonyx vis à vis Pseudocrangonyx Akatsuka & Komai, 1922. Additionally, the publication dates of Allocrangonyx Schellenberg, 1937 and Niphargus foreli speziae Schellenberg, 1937 are corrected from 1936. 

On the type species of Geophilus Gistel, 1834 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4461 (1) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
GIANLUCA NARDI ◽  
GIOVANNI DELLACASA ◽  
MARCO DELLACASA
Keyword(s):  
Type Species ◽  
Junior Synonym ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
New Synonymy

Geophilus Gistel, 1834 (Insecta: Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae) is invalid being a junior homonym of Geophilus Leach, 1814 (Myriapoda: Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Geophilidae) and of Geophilus Schönherr, 1823 (Insecta: Coleoptera: Curculionidae).        Scarabaeus asper Fabricius, 1775 was recently designated as type species of Geophilus Gistel, 1834, making Geophilus a junior synonym of Psammodius Fallén, 1807 (Insecta: Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae: Psammodiini: Psammodiina). However, there is clear evidence that Scarabaeus asper Fabricius, 1775 sensu Gistel, 1834 is Ptinus germanus Linnaeus, 1767, currently Rhyssemus germanus (Linnaeus, 1767) (Insecta: Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae: Psammodiini: Rhyssemina). To resolve this issue, the type species of Geophilus Gistel, 1834 is here fixed (under Article 70.3.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) as Ptinus germanus Linnaeus, 1767, misidentified as Scarabaeus asper Fabricius, 1775 in the original paper.        Scarabaeus asper Fabricius, 1775 sensu Mulsant, 1842 (= Ptinus germanus Linnaeus, 1767) is the type species of Rhyssemus Mulsant, 1842, therefore Rhyssemus Mulsant, 1842 is a junior synonym of Geophilus Gistel, 1834 (new synonymy). Although it has priority, Geophilus Gistel, 1834 is a junior homonym and therefore invalid, so Rhyssemus Mulsant, 1842 remains the valid name of this taxon. 

Comments on the nomenclatural status of two subgeneric names for marine gastrotrichs (Gastrotricha: Xenotrichulidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2732 (1) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
SHUSHI ABUKAWA ◽  
HIROSHI KAJIHARA
Keyword(s):  
Type Species ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Junior Synonym ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
New Subgenus

Remane (1927) established the generic name Xenotrichula for a single species of marine gastrotrich, Xenotrichula velox Remane, 1927. Recently, Hummon and Todaro (2010: 22–23) created the new subgenus Velox, designating X. velox as the type species, despite Article 44.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (hereafter, the "Code") (ICZN 1999). Because the subgeneric names Xenotrichula Remane, 1927 and Velox Hummon & Todaro, 2010 share the same name-bearing type species, the latter is an objective junior synonym of the former and thus should be regarded as permanently invalid. Hence the nominotypical subgenus must be expressed as Xenotrichula (Xenotrichula) Remane, 1927, and its type species Xenotrichula (Xenotrichula) velox.

Carlsbergia, a replacement name for Indiella Sautya, Tabachnick & Ingole, 2011 (Porifera: Aulocalycidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4571 (1) ◽  
pp. 145
Author(s):  
JIMMY GAUDIN
Keyword(s):  
Indian Ocean ◽  
Type Species ◽  
Junior Synonym ◽  
New Combination ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
Carlsberg Ridge ◽  
The Indian Ocean

The genus Indiella was established by Sautya, Tabachnick & Ingole in 2011 to include the monotypic, and type species Indiella ridgenensis for a species of Porifera (Hexactinellida: Aulocalycidae) from the Carlsberg Ridge in the Indian Ocean. Unfortunately, it turns out that this name is already preoccupied by Indiella Blattný, 1925 (type species: Ctenistes birmanensis Motschulsky, 1851 by monotypy), a poorly known genus of Pselaphine beetle (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). However, although Indiella Blattný is currently considered as a junior synonym of Sognorus Reitter, 1881, this name is available and, therefore, according to Article 52.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999), Indiella Sautya, Tabachnick & Ingole, as a junior homonym, cannot be used. To resolve this homonymy, in accordance with Article 60 of the ICZN, a substitute name with a new combination is proposed below. 

scholarly journals Back to the future: the proper name for red-backed voles is Clethrionomys Tilesius and not Myodes Pallas

Mammalia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Kryštufek ◽  
Alexey S. Tesakov ◽  
Vladimir S. Lebedev ◽  
Anna A. Bannikova ◽  
Nataliya I. Abramson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type Species ◽  
Junior Synonym ◽  
Zoological Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
The Future ◽  
Proper Name

AbstractTwo names (Clethrionomys and Myodes) are used interchangeably for red-backed voles, which is contrary to one of the fundamental principles of zoological nomenclature, that each taxon has a single and unique valid name. Fixation of Mus lemmus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of Myodes Pallas, 1811, meets the requirements stipulated in the Article 69.1.1 of the 4th edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and is therefore valid. Hence, the genus group name Myodes is a junior synonym of Lemmus Link, 1795, and is not available for red-backed voles. The oldest valid name for red-backed voles is Clethrionomys Tilesius, 1850, with the type species (Mus rutilus Pallas, 1779) subsequently designated by Palmer (1928).

LITERARY ROMANTICISM AS A THEORETICAL ISSUE

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-27
Author(s):  
Vera V. Serdechnaia ◽  
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Conceptual Analysis ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Theoretical Concept ◽  
Historical Research ◽  
Theoretical Issue ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Literary Process ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject

The article is devoted to the analysis of the concept of literary romanticism. The research aims at a refinement of the “romanticism” concept in relation to the history of the literary process. The main research methods include conceptual analysis, textual analysis, comparative historical research. The author analyzes the semantic genesis of the term “romanticism”, various interpretations of the concept, compares the definitions of different periods and cultures. The main results of the study are as follows. The history of the term “romanticism” shows a change in a number of definitions for the same concept in relation to the same literary phenomena. By the end of the 20th century, realizing the existence of significant contradictions in the content of the term “romanticism”, researchers often come to abandon it. At the same time, the steady use of the term “romanticism” testifies to the subject-conceptual component that exists in it, which does not lose its relevance, but just needs a theoretical refinement. Conclusion: one have to revise an approach to romanticism as a theoretical concept, based on the change in the concept of an individual in Europe at the end of the 18th century. It is the newly discovered freedom of an individual predetermines the rethinking for the image of the author as a creator and determines the artistic features of literary romanticism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document