valid genus or nomen nudum?

[Denis Brothers]

I agree with Bill (below), except that no homonymy is involved. Bradley
1905 is deemed to have established Evaniella unicolor Bradley, 1905, not
Evania unicolor Bradley, 1905.
Denis

Professor Denis J. Brothers
School of Botany and Zoology
(and Centre for Environment & Development)
University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg
Private Bag X01              Telephone: (+27) (0)33-260 5106
Scottsville                        Fax: (+27) (0)33-260 5105
3209 SOUTH AFRICA     e-mail: brothers at nu.ac.za

>>> Bill Shear <wshear at hams-hsc.hsc.edu> 05/30/02 02:56PM >>>
On 5/29/02 6:18 PM, "Barry Roth" <barry_roth at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> I'll give it a shot:
> Given the date of the publication, I would say that this qualifies as
the
> proposal of an available genus-group name, Evaniella.  Evaniella is
not a
> nomen nudum because it contains two available species referred to it.
 Either
> of the originally referred species, neomexicana or californica, would
be
> available for subsequent designation as the type-species.  Although
the author
> declared that the "type" was E. unicolor sensu Ashmead, non Say, that
species
> is not available as of the date of the present publication and is
therefore
> not a candidate for type-species of Evaniella.

Barry, I think this is a reasonable argument based on Art. 12.2.5, but
in
Art. 11.10, we read: "If an author employs a specific or subspecific
name
for the type species oof a new nominal genus-group taxon, but
deliberately
in the sense of a misidentification of it, then the author's employment
of
the name is deemed to denote a new nominal species and athe specific
name is
available with its own author and date as though it were  newly
proposed in
combination with the genus-group name."  There follows an example which
is
almost exactly like the one given in the original e-mail message.  So
you
could say that Bradley actually established a new species name, E.
unicolor
Bradley 1905, an instant homonym of E. unicolor Say.  Then in 1908
(you
could also say) he replaced that name with a new one.

Confusing (and contradictory to my earlier private posts to the
questioner)
but it looks like the real answer is that the name became available in
1905,
with the type species a homonym for which the author (Bradley)
provided,
inadvertantly,  a "replacement" name in 1908.  (The new name is
probably not
a REAL replacement name in the strict sense, but a synonym that takes
precedence over the homonymous first name).

Whew!

Bill Shear
Department of Biology
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney VA 23943
(434)223-6172
FAX (434)223-6374
email<wshear at email.hsc.edu>
Moderating e-lists:
Coleus at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coleus
Opiliones at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opiliones
Myriapod at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/myriapod
MilliPEET website at
http://www.fmnh.org/research_collections/zoology/zoo_sites/millipeet/home.ht

ml
SHAPE OF LIFE website at
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/episodes/conq_explo1.html

"The old naturalists were so sensitive and sympathetic to nature that
they
could be surprised by the ordinary events of life.  It was an
incessant
miracle to them, and therefore gorgons and flying dragons were not
incredible to them.  The greatests and saddest defect is not credulity,
but
our habitual forgetfulness that our science is ignorance."
Henry David Thoreau, Journals, March 5, 1860.