valid genus or nomen nudum?

[Ron at]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Spies" <spies at ZI.BIOLOGIE.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: valid genus or nomen nudum?


> 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

I agree with this 95%.  My only reservation is that I am not convinced that
the argument of a 1905 avilability is correct.  As I said in my first post
on this, the first issue is that of publication.  This is why I said this
first.

"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"?

Art. 7 covers all time (for Chapter 3's area).   Art. 8:3 should (or could)
be applied here.  The example of 11:10, pointed out by Bill, is very
parallel but not in a very important area.  In the Example, Leach was
explicit in purpose and application of the misidentification  - while
Bradley was confusingly indicating 3 different names in an association that
was basically disclaimed. To say I will describe - is to say specifically
that I am not now describing nor intending to create a nomenclatural act.
This position/intent of his is _clearly confirmed_ by what he did in 1908.
I don't see us getting to the issue of 11:10 because we do not first get
past 7 and 8:3.

The above would make 12.2.5 moot.  Neomexicana, californica, and unicolor
sensu Ashmead can be considered unambiguously assigned to Evaniella (so I
stand corrected on that).  (Dennis is correct about no homony due to
Evaniella vs. Evania.)

In my original post I said this looks like an "unpublished [genus] name
from 1905 - which is made available from Bradley 1908."   Enter my 100%
agreement with Martin - the bottom line _needs_ to be the continued use of
Evaniella semaeoda Bradley, 1908 and not that of Evaniella unicolor
Bradley, 1905.  Like Martin, I do not work on this group, and this is
assuming that semaeoda is the usual name in prevailing usage?

Using the Code as a tool. Since there seems to be more than one available
route in this case.  I vote for Evaniella unicolor Bradley, 1905 not
meeting 8:3
and thus being published.  Leaving only Evaniella semaeoda Bradley, 1908

Ron Gatrelle