valid genus or nomen nudum?

[Ron at]

>   Andy Deans <adeans at LIFE.UIUC.EDU> wrote:
> I have a technical ICZN question concerning the evaniid (Hymenoptera)
genus
> Evaniella as described by Bradley in 1905. Here is the text all
subsequent
> papers (including Bradley's later papers) refer to as the original
generic
> description:
>
> "Evania neomexicana and E. californica belong to a new genus which I
shall
> shortly describe under the name Evaniella. Here also belongs and stands
as
> the type the species which Dr. Ashmead (1901) calls unicolor, Say, but is
> not that species. Say's description applies to E. appendigaster, which
> could easily have spread into the interior with the early settlers,
> inasmuch as it is parasitic on cockroaches."

While things put forth in the past come under the Code of that day, it is
also true that each new version also addresses these older situations and
either lets them stand (grandfathered in so to speak) or, adds/subtracts to
the criteria they must meet.   To me, this looks like either a nomen nudum
from 1905 or an unpublished name from 1905 - which is made available from
Bradley 1908.

The phrase "which I shall shortly describe" could be taken as a disclamer
in my view.  Art. 7 (pre current Code acts) and Art. 8:3.  He is saying - I
am not introducing or delimiting this name at this time even though I am
mentioning it.
Thus, is it "published"?

Excluded names.  1.3.1  hypothetical concepts.  The 1905 usage looks
hypothetical

Published before 1931.  Needs a description, or definition, or indication.
This does not meet 12.2.5 as there is no unambiguously assigned taxon put
to it.  Nor 12.2.6 as no species is described.  Nor 12.2.7 as an
illustration is not referenced - unless - the unicolor, Say, per Ashmead
1901, is a figure.  Then it would seem to stand by indication from
association with Ashmead's 1901 figure.  This is my take on this.

Ron Gatrelle


>
> This does not sound like a valid description to me, but rather a nomen
> nudum. Bradley transfers two described species (Evania neomexicana
Ashmead
> and Evania californica Ashmead) to the new genus Evaniella, but he
> designates a type species which is not even described until 1908 -
> Evaniella semaeoda Bradley. We don't find out until Bradley's 1908 paper
> that this is the species Ashmead thought was Evania unicolor.
>
> In 1908 Bradley describes the genus in a more typical fashion with a
> detailed morphological report, key to species, description of the new
> species E. semaeoda, and mention of that species as the type for the
> genus. He refers to his 1905 paper as the original description though.
>
> Any ideas? Thanks!
>
> Andy
>
> Ashmead, W. H. 1901. Canadian Entomologist 33: 302-4.
> Bradley, J. C. 1905. Canadian Entomologist 37: 63-64.
> Bradley, J. C. 1908. Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 34: 101-194.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
>