valid genus or nomen nudum?

[Martin Spies]

Dear all,

although the previous list contributions on this problem have
resulted in a (i.e. one) solution that conforms to the ICZN,
I'd like to submit that this is not the only solution possible
within the current Code, and that an alternative might in fact
be preferable in the interest of stability.

The most important part of Dr. Deans' question appears to
concern the valid name of the one species Bradley designated
as the type species of Evaniella both in 1905 and in 1908.
According to the solution offered up to now, this species
would have to be called Evaniella unicolor Bradley, 1905.
If I understand the situation correctly - I do not work on
Hymenoptera - then this would mean the introduction of a
previously unused name in place of what has so far been
known, and - I assume - rather frequently used, as
Evaniella semaeoda Bradley, 1908.
At the same time, the species epithet "unicolor" would be put
back in use but in one different from an identical species name
that has been known but out of use: Evania unicolor Say,
a junior synonym of Evania appendigaster (Linnaeus).
Although there is no formal problem with this, it nevertheless
involves a certain risk of misunderstandings and, thus, instability.

On the other hand, if a solution could be found recognizing
Evaniella from Bradley (1908), not from Bradley (1905), then
the net change to stability would be less, as only a date would
change - technically not even a part of any scientific name -
whereas the generic concept and the name of its type species
would remain unchanged (E. semaeoda Bradley, 1908).

To this effect I'd like to propose that the ICZN Article to
look to regarding the validity of Evaniella Bradley, 1905 is
not Art. 11.5.1. ("A name proposed conditionally for a taxon
before 1961 is not to be excluded on that account alone ..."),
but instead Art. 11.5.: "To be available, a name must be
used as valid when proposed ...".

Bradley's publications (1905 and 1908) allow the interpretation
that he did not intend to establish the genus in 1905, but only
later, possibly after more detailed study of Ashmead's material
or when he would have more publication space for full formal
descriptions. In fact, Bradley (1908) made good on the earlier
announcement.

The only problem with this interpretation that I can think of
would be if any additional publication had interfered with
this matter between Bradley (1905) and Bradley (1908).


Please allow me to repeat that I consider the previously
proposed solution as also acceptable within ICZN (1999).
However, the alternative submitted here - if found
equally 'legal' - would seem to have the definite advantage
of less change to the nomenclatural data involved.


Best regards

--
Martin Spies
Schraemelstr. 151
D-81247 Muenchen
Germany

Email: spies at zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de

Tel. (ZSM) +49 89 8107 153
Fax (ZSM) +49 89 8107 300



Andy Deans schrieb:

> 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.