| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sangamesh |
Posted - 11/03/2015 : 06:07:01
the Titan Data Base and BioLib have given "Latreille, 1829" as authority to the genus Apomecyna, but i see in some catalogues and at http://www.lamiinae.org/ citing "Dejean, 1821" as authority ...
Kindly suggest which one is the right...so many confusions |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Francesco |
Posted - 20/04/2015 : 21:06:21
quote:
Originally posted by dryobius
Of course, we listed Methiini as a separate tribe because essentially all catalogs still follow that. We did not go through all of literature and see who proposed synonyms.
Actually, you gave different levels of family-names, accepting tribes, subtribes and synonyms in completely arbitrarily manner without respecting the rules of the ICZN and showing a very superficial knowledge of the groups.
Hence, your catalog is wrong for this aspect. |
| dryobius |
Posted - 19/04/2015 : 14:23:38
The purpose of the paper by Bousquet et al was to establish the validity and priority of family-level names. It was NOT meant to be the final word on the status of any tribe or subfamily. Whether Methiini is part of Xystrocerini (one of many examples) was not our purpose. In as many cases as possible, we tried to list all of the available names, their authors, and years of publication (i.e.Apomecyna Dejean, 1821 met all conditions of ICZN in our opinion, then and now). Of course, we listed Methiini as a separate tribe because essentially all catalogs still follow that. We did not go through all of literature and see who proposed synonyms. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 19/04/2015 : 08:45:53
I completely disagree with you Dan.
No part of the Code supports your idea that
quote:
Originally posted by dryobius
"the use of one or more available specific names in combination with it" means that only ONE of the names must be available.
on the contrary, the Preamble of the Code states that:
The objects of the Code are to promote stability and universality in the scientific names of animals and to ensure that the name of each taxon is unique and distinct. All its provisions and recommendations are subservient to those ends and none restricts the freedom of taxonomic thought or actions.
Priority of publication is a basic principle of zoological nomenclature; however, under conditions prescribed in the Code its application may be modified to conserve a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning.
Considering Dejean's names as valid with only ONE available species means revalidate old genera that nobody used... but still mentioned, so that they cannot be considered as nomina oblita.
E.g. Sternodonta for Sternotomis, Stenura for Stenelytrana, Nyphona for Hecyra, Isarthron for Tetropium, Asemnis for Ceresium, etc...
Then, if we also want use names with wrong authorities (as Sama made with Deroplia based on genei Chevrolat rather than genei Aragona), we should also accept Zygocera for Disternopsis (based on pruinosa McLeay rather than pruinosa Boisduval), Gnaphalocera for Chion (based on cincta Lacordaire rather than cinctus Drury)... but I do not want to furnish further material to low-level entomologists.
Concerning your catalog, we should open another topic... but I have to reminds you that Oemini and Methiini were synonymised with Xystrocerini by me and never revalidated; thus, your catalog is wrong at least for this point. |
| dryobius |
Posted - 16/03/2015 : 19:38:24
Your quote of ICZN rules is accurate, although myself and others (Bousquet, Bouchard) must disagree with the interpretation that you provide.
"the use of one or more available specific names in combination with it, " means that only ONE of the names must be available. Hence albo-guttata / histrio is adequate. it doesn't matter if "adspersa" is nomen nudum or belongs in any other genus. Since Dejean indicated that albo-guttata and histrio were synonyms, and since "adspersa" was nomen nudum, than the type species of Apomecyna is fixed by monotypy.
In 2009, Bousquet, myself and others published a list of all family group names that were available within Cerambycidae. And while we did make a few mistakes, there was considerable research involved, especially in terms of ICZN rules. Some (such as the Palaearctic catalog editors) did not follow all of our results, perhaps because they were unaware. At the least, it would be useful for those with opposing points of view or those who interpret ICZN differently, to publish something instead of just ignoring it and continuing to use whatever they like. Hence TITAN database is wrong, the palaearctic catalog is wrong. |
| Francesco |
Posted - 14/03/2015 : 07:56:55
Here Dejean's text:
Dejean, 1821: 108
This name has been published without description before 1931.
In this case, the ICZN, Art. 12.2.5. (here) must be follow.
It provides that the genus is available under this condition:
12.2.5. in the case of a new genus-group name (Apomecyna),
the use of one or more available specific names in combination with it,
or clearly included under it (albo-guttata/histrio, adspersa),
or clearly referred to it by bibliographic reference,
provided that the specific name or names (albo-guttata/histrio, adspersa) can be unambiguously assigned to a nominal species-group taxon or taxa (Apomecyna).
It this case, can "the specific name or names be unambiguously assigned to a nominal species-group taxon or taxa"?
In my opinion no, since adspersa is nomen nudum, nobody knows what it is; thus, it can not be unambiguously assigned to a nominal species. |
| dryobius |
Posted - 13/03/2015 : 22:19:19
Yes, I see that Nomenclator Zoologicus has "n.n", but is that correct?
All that needed to be printed in a publication during that era was the genus name, and the name of a valid species name. Hardly any of Dejean's genera or species have description as we know it. |
| sangamesh |
Posted - 13/03/2015 : 15:03:00
Thank you both, for valuable suggestion.... |
| Francesco |
Posted - 11/03/2015 : 15:29:40
You can download Dejean, 1821 here (only pages concerning Cerambycidae; Apomecyna at page 108).
According to the Nomenclator Zoologicus (here) as well, Apomecyna Dejean, 1821 is n.n. (= nomen nudum), while it is valid that of 1835... which, nevertheless, is posterior to Apomecyna Serville, 1829 |
| dryobius |
Posted - 11/03/2015 : 14:03:44
The name Apomecyna first appreared in Dejean 1821 and it does appear to me be validated based on the rules of that era.
Online "Nomenclator Zoologicus" is another good source of reference.
Of course, you can download Dejean 1821 too from the Internet. |
|
|
