[Taxacom] Genus Hamadryas Hübner, 1806 (or 1808)

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Dear Taxacomers,

I am seeking some advice as to the currency / validity of the Lepidopteran genus Hamadryas Hübner, 1806, or 1808, listed as "included in a work rejected for nomenclatural purposes" in both cases (2 different works) according to the ICZN Index, following Opinions 278 and 789, but apparently still in use with some 81 currently accepted species according to LepIndex and Catalogue of Life.

The ICZN index also lists 6 other instances of Hamadryas from other authors, all listed as junior homonyms of "Hamadryas Hübner, [1806]" and therefore unavailable names, but no available version of this genus is on the Official List.

I'd appreciate it if anyone can shed light on this. For the record, the LepIndex gives as valid the instance Hübner, 1806, Samml. Exot. Schmett., 1 pl. [47], however this corresponds with the 1808 instance as cited in the ICZN Index (their earlier ref. is Testamen, also rejected). Also I have not been able to find the detail of ICZN Opinion 278 or 789, or discover whether there are any later rulings on this issue - so somewhat confused as to what may be going on here...

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees
Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
GPO Box 1538,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/ 
Biodiversity informatics research activities: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
Personal info: http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566


-----Original Message-----
From: iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org [mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Welter-Schultes
Sent: Thursday, 11 March 2010 10:24 AM
To: Dr. David Campbell
Cc: iczn-list at afriherp.org
Subject: Re: [iczn-list] lugworm problem, proposal to modify Art. 30.1.4.

> to Stagnicola, Fruticicola, Urticicola, and Pseudamnicola, and note
> that Opinion 1108 applied it to Amnicola, calling it masculine.

Stagnicola was first mentioned as a synonym and was validated later. I
treat  it as masculine. But both versions are on the market. Was initially
used as feminine.

Urticicola was established as a subgenus of Zenobiella, by default
masculine. Also here both versions are in usage. I treat it as masculine.
Has initially been treated as feminine.

Fruticicola is feminine under Art. 30.1.4.2 (the French Code, not the
English Code), Falkner et al. 2002 did not see that or did not read the
original description carefully enough. Fruticicola is an important genus,
but fortunately it has no adjectival species included.

Amnicola must be masculine by default, but seems to have always been
treated as feminine. It seems that Op. 1108 did not have too much
influence.

Pseudamnicola is the coolest. Paulucci 1878 proposed this genus
conditionally in the Amnicola chapter, "for in case if the European
Amnicola species would be classified as a separate genus", and classfied
several European species in Amnicola. Paulucci did not state explicitly
that Pseudamnicola was derived from Amnicola. So Paulucci failed to
explain directly that Pseudamnicola was derived from Amnicola. In the
account of species Paulucci combined several specific names with Amnicola,
and declined all as feminine. There are 20 different doors open to come to
20 different conclusions.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/47695
page 48.
I would be interested in how Doug would interprete this case.
Pseudamnicola has ever since been treated as feminine, and contains many
adjectival species.

> I'm not convinced that fixing the gender of species epithets is all
> that disruptive
Certainly not if gender agreement is removed entirely from the Code and
zoologists would need to spend less time on these questions, passing the
workload to bioinformaticians who would be better equipped to do the job.

I also found some examples in Lepidoptera, but I would not give them as
examples here. For gender agreement lepidopterists have found independent
and quite successful solutions, for which the Code does not play a crucial
role.
I would support including a small article in the Code "The chapters on
gender agreement should not be applied to lepidopteran insects", to
protect prevailing traditions there.

Francisco







_______________________________________________
iczn-list mailing list
iczn-list at afriherp.org
http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list