Taxacom: a class of errors in Worms (and similar databases)

Tue Feb 25 12:48:41 CST 2025

Dear all,

First off, many thanks to Francisco and others for helping me see my error with Cerilocus Stål 1858, and clarifying things generally. Very helpful! And apologies for the diacritic corruptions (e.g. on Stål), not sure why that's happening.

As for cases AFTER 1930, here is an example, this one from a mite group... These are the relevant pages:
Willmann (1951: 140) in https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zobodat.at%2Fpdf%2FSBAWW_160_0091-0176.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf3bb61a71ace4308a4c208dd55cd1505%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761061771075469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Hq%2BpJ5nKuTo%2FQwkBExHe404kXoyxgG6WRiMGNO%2BNWFI%3D&reserved=0 [50th page of PDF]
Willmann later (1953: 487-488) in https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zobodat.at%2Fpdf%2FSBAWW_162_0449-0519.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf3bb61a71ace4308a4c208dd55cd1505%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761061771117344%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=G4nTW5ZdeaAuwjBkWpU%2FelYOGH0cKJKJ5FVDN3B9fxk%3D&reserved=0 [39th page of PDF]

Carl Willmann (1951: 140) noted two species (2nd one noted as new, but 1953 work says 1st name WAS new, though not described):
"121. Ledermülleriopsis triscutata Willm." includes just information about where it was collected, and is not available per Art. 13.1.

"122. Ledermülleriopsis plumosus nov. spec." notes where it was found and provides a few characters (size and location/length of the "feathered hairs"), which I believe makes the name available.

There is no separate description for the genus, which seems to be not available from this post-1930, pre-1960 work (Art. 13.3).

LATER, Willmann (1953: 487-488) lists "Ledermülleriopsis triscutata Willmann, 1951" and notes that he had (in 1951 work) given that new species name, but without properly describing it, and he proceeds to give a description and type for the genus ("Genotypus: Ledermülleriopsis triscutata nov. spec."), and then to describe that particular species (again, as nov. spec.).

"Ledermülleriopsis" is corrected per the Code to "Ledermuelleriopsis" (apparently based on German word(s)). Per Art. 30.1.2 (see Example) the suffix -opsis indicates it is feminine, and it was made available in 1953 with the type's name given in feminine adjectival form (L. triscutata).

The genus & two species have been in use in recent decades, and I believe we can conclude from this that the genus and its type speices date to 1953, and one species dates to 1951, like so:
Ledermuelleriopsis Willmann, 1953
..Ledermuelleriopsis plumosus Willmann, 1951 [oh, it looks like this need to be "plumosa"?]
..Ledermuelleriopsis triscutata Willmann, 1953

Speaking of gender, these have been in use but look to likely be adjectival... Do these need modification for gender concordance?
Ledermuelleriopsis toleratus Kuznetsov, 1987
Ledermuelleriopsis indiscretus Dönel & Sa. Dogan, 2011

Again, I am very happy to be corrected if I got something wrong here !

I have other examples from 1931-1960 if there is a desire to see if they might be helpful for discussion or clarifying the Code going forward, but perhaps I won't write as much accompanying narrative ;-)... E.g.:

  *
Willmann also described 3 species (1951) in the genus Cheylostigmaeus (another mite), although it wasn't made available (by Willmann) until 1952...
  *
Villiers described 2 species (1948) in the genus Jamesa (Heteroptera: Reduviidae), although it wasn't made available (by Villiers) until 1949...
  *
Hinton described 2 species (1939) in the genus Hexacylloepus (elmid beetle), although it wasn't made available (by Hinton) until 1940...

All as I understand them, at least...

Regards,
Dave Nicolson

>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:54:53 +0100
>From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
>To: <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
>Subject: Re: Taxacom: a class of errors in Worms (and similar databases)
>
>Dear Dave,
>Thank you for this precious real-life example.
>
>The genus Cerilocus was made available at that occasion on p. 443 as
>Cerilocus St?l, 1858, because the author used two available specific
>names (C. nero and C. dohrni) in combination with it (Art. 12.2.5).
>
>The name is not Cerilocus St?l, 1859, but Cerilocus St?l, 1858.
>
>Neave 1939: 645 cited the name from 1858, still correct under Code-4.
>
>Art. 12.2.6 is reciprocal, as Doug observed correctly, but this is
>entirely meaningless for the availability of the genus since the genus
>would equally be made available under Art. 12.1 or 12.2.5, depending on
>the situation. Art. 12.2.6 applies also to the genus, but is
>meaningless. The more important Article is Art. 12.2.5, which in terms
>of genus-group name availability covers all cases of Art. 12.2.6 and in
>addition many others, like the one you cited.
>
>It seems that Art. 12.2.6 leads to misinterpretations in that the much
>more important Art. 12.2.5 is overlooked.
>
>
>Best wishes
>Francisco
>
>Am 25.02.2025 um 00:15 schrieb Nicolson, David via Taxacom:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Let me put forth an example (from Heteroptera) so people can consider the ramifications.
>>
>> In 1858 St?l published two new species names under the genus heading "CERILOCUS. St?l", here:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F15959513&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf3bb61a71ace4308a4c208dd55cd1505%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761061771141002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mxKyiByyj%2FQ3r6wnbqtvFqVJ5bx7FxwJngMlPj1Nr4Y%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> There you'll see C. Nero and C. Dohrni, two (new) species.
>>
>> My interpretation is that per Art. 12.2.6, this does NOT make the genus available, as it was not a single species. But the two species are available.
>>
>> In 1859, the same author made the same genus name available, with the same 2 species plus three more:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F15963309&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf3bb61a71ace4308a4c208dd55cd1505%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761061771162662%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UYTWtBivOz9PiFQB3XDMPO6y9rQQbCxu4%2B5wdw0b2b4%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> The 2 original 1858 species are still in use in recent decades (last check a few years back), and still in the 1859 genus, and these 3 names can be listed like so:
>> Cerilocus St?l, 1859
>>
>> ..Cerilocus dohrni St?l, 1858 [effectively as originally published]
>>
>> ..Cerilocus nero St?l, 1858 [effectively as originally published]
>>
>>
>> I agree with the assertion that it would not be very helpful to add parentheses to the two species' authorship.
>>
>>
>> So while it is useful to get a list of binomina that are non-parenthetical yet preceded the genus being available, such cases cannot be assumed to be in error, as has been noted, they must be checked (and hopefully annotated so that people don't end up needing to come back to ask about it again later).
>>
>>
>> If I made errors in assumptions or in deductions, I am very happy to be corrected, but this is how I currently understand things.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dave Nicolson
>>
>>