valid genus or nomen nudum?

[Thomas Pape]

Barry is right about the availability of Evaniella: A new genus-group name
published before 1931 is made available 'by indication' when one or more
available specific names are used in combination with it or clearly included
under it (ICZN 4th ed. Article 12.2.5).

The type fixation, however, is more delicate. The original description goes:
"Here also belongs and stands as
the type the species which Dr. Ashmead (1901) calls unicolor, Say, but is
not that species". This is a type fixation by deliberate use of a
misidentification of a previously established name (ICZN 4th ed. Article
67.13; see also Article 70.4). In other words, designating Ashmead's (1901)
_unicolor_ is a valid type designation even though the type species as such
was named much later BECAUSE it was originally expressly stated to be
misidentified and as such "is deemed to be a new nominal species" (see also
Article 67.2.1).

Thomas Pape
Naturhistoriska riksmuseet



> Andy Deans <adeans at LIFE.UIUC.EDU> wrote: Hi all,

> 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.

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