| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vitali |
Posted - 29/03/2015 : 16:22:47
Can anyone update me on the systematics of genera close to Leuconitocris?
Probably a paper by Francesco of 2011?
Or Téocchi, Sudre & Jiroux, 2010?
Anyway, BioLib and Titan database give it in different way. It seems there is no such genus as Dirphya anymore. Is Nitakeris a genus or subgenus?
Thanks in advance. |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| africaone |
Posted - 03/04/2015 : 11:16:12
quote:
Originally posted by Francesco
I have noticed that in a following paper (Cahiers Magellanes 17: p. 82) Téocchi et al. insist in their error mentioning
"Nitakeris (Cicatronitocris) senegalensis".
Somebody should donate to these "specialists" a French version of the Code!
Here, it is not question of consensus; it is question of applying the international rules of the Code.
one knows Teocchi's love for the Code  |
| Francesco |
Posted - 01/04/2015 : 12:32:50
I have noticed that in a following paper (Cahiers Magellanes 17: p. 82) Téocchi et al. insist in their error mentioning
"Nitakeris (Cicatronitocris) senegalensis".
Somebody should donate to these "specialists" a French version of the Code!
Here, it is not question of consensus; it is question of applying the international rules of the Code.
|
| Vitali |
Posted - 29/03/2015 : 19:26:00
Thanks again
|
| Francesco |
Posted - 29/03/2015 : 19:16:53
Sent. |
| Vitali |
Posted - 29/03/2015 : 18:59:18
Thank you, Francesco.
It seems there is consensus concerning the name, but its validation got stuck behind a formal procedure. Is it possible to have a pdf copy of your paper of 2011? |
| Francesco |
Posted - 29/03/2015 : 17:50:16
Dirphya Pascoe, 1858 and Nitocris Thomson, 1858 are two preoccupied names (by Dirphya Hübner, 1826 and Nitocris Rafinesque, 1815); thus, Téocchi, Sudre & Jiroux (2010) proposed the new name Nitakeris.
They also proposed the new combinations:
Nitakeris subgenus Cicatronitocris Breuning, 1950 and
Nitakeris subgenus Leuconitocris Breuning, 1950
ignoring that ICNZ, Art. 23.3.5. states that:
The Principle of Priority requires that if a name in use for a taxon is found to be unavailable or invalid it must be replaced by the next oldest available name from among its synonyms, including the names of the contained taxa of the same group (e.g. subgenera within genera), providing that that name is not itself invalid. If the rejected name has no potentially valid synonym a new substitute name (see Article 60.3) must be established in its place.
Consequently, I arbitrarily elevated Leuconitocris to generic level for Dirphya and Nitocris and considered Nitakeris as a subgenus of Leuconitocris (Vitali, 2011).
In a more recent paper, Teocchi, Sudre and Jiroux (Cahiers Magellanes 15: p. 93) wrote:
"Nous profitons de ce noule pour redonner son rang de genre à Nitakeris"
The meaning of this sentence is mysterious...
- Does this sentence mean that Nitakeris is considered as separated genus from Leuconitocris?
In this case, they should have add Nitakeris n. status.
However, no reasons were added for this decision.
I'd like that Jérôme Sudre could put more light on this topic...
|
|
|
