[Taxacom] Genera Triton Linnaeus and Bulis Gistl

[Stephen Thorpe]

yes, that sorts out the validity problem, i.e.: 
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ocenebra
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charonia
but it still leaves an issue unresolved, i.e., where to place the suppressed 
genus Tritonalia in the system?? In the synonymy of Ocenebra or Charonia??
The wider issue issue here is how to interpret rejected and invalid names? When 
the ICZN puts a name (genus) on an Official List of valid names, it also 
determines type species of that genus. But when it puts a name on an Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid names, it determines no such details. So, does 
Tritonalia have a type species? What is it?

Stephen




________________________________
From: "gerarus at westnet.com.au" <gerarus at westnet.com.au>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: Tony Rees <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tue, 12 July, 2011 2:29:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Genera Triton Linnaeus and Bulis Gistl

Not to worry: _Tritonalia_ Fleming 1828 was suppressed by the ICZN in 1969, 
Opinion 886 (http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/44468#page/168/mode/1up).

    Cheers,

        Christopher Taylor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: "Tony Rees" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tuesday, 12 July, 2011 10:03:55 AM GMT +08:00 Beijing / Chongqing / Hong 
Kong / Urumqi
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Genera Triton Linnaeus and Bulis Gistl

well, in an interesting spin-off confusion from Triton ... one of the homonyms 
is Triton Montfort, 1810 (genuine Mollusca). There appears to be a problem in 
relation to this name, see:
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Triton_Montfort and
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ocenebra
Basically, since Tritonalia isn't a homonym (one of the few names involved that 
isn't), it must be the VALID name of either Charonia or Ocenebra, both of which 
are currently considered valid! There are two disputed interpretations of 
Tritonalia, one by Nomenclator Zoologicus, and the other by WoRMS, but even if 
WoRMS has the correct interpretetion (which seems likely), then Tritonalia is 
the VALID name for Ocenebra!

Stephen




________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 11 July, 2011 7:35:29 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Genera Triton Linnaeus and Bulis Gistl


Well, I’ve got a little further – the WoRMS entry appears to have confused 
Triton Linnaeus with Triton Laurenti, 1768, which is in Amphibia but is not a 
valid name (it was replaced by Oiacurus Leuckart 1821, currently a syn. of 
Triturus Rafinesque, 1815 it seems).
 
Does not resolve the original question, however…
 
- Tony
 
From:Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Monday, 11 July 2011 5:31 PM
To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Genera Triton Linnaeus and Bulis Gistl
 
it's lookin' like a real mish mash of homonymy ... I'll get back to you when I 
have untangled it (or you can follow my progress on Wikispecies) ...
 
Stephen
 

________________________________

From:"Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 11 July, 2011 6:43:17 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Genera Triton Linnaeus and Bulis Gistl

Dear all,

I am trying to understand why the genera Triton Linnaeus and Bulis Gistl 
("emend. pro Triton L. 1758") are both listed as "Crustacea" in Nomenclator 
Zoologicus here: http://www.ubio.org/NZ/PDF/Vol4/pg0570.pdf 


and here: http://www.ubio.org/NZ/PDF/Vol1/pg0500.pdf

when it appears they should be molluscs, I think, see Syst. Nat. p. 658: 
http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/25034469 - though I am not sure what type of 

mollusc, or whether indeed I am correct here.

Interestingly the World Register of Marine Species entry for a junior homonym, 
Triton Montfort, 1810 says "Invalid: junior homonym of Triton Linnaeus, 1758 
[Amphibia]"... presumably just an error, though not obvious why.

Is anyone able to offer insight into 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



_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here