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

Tue Feb 25 15:35:51 CST 2025

Dear Dave,

Thank you for your example on the mite genus and species, and for the 
online link. The online links to free access publications allow us to 
list the cases as examples in the revised Code. It is importent, if 
examples are provided, that readers can quickly verify how the example 
looks like in practice. In publications after 1923 free access is rare.

Ledermülleriopsis must be corrected to Ledermuelleriopsis (Ledermüller 
is a German surname, derived from a German word).

Ledermuelleriopsis triscutata as mentioned by Willmann (1951: 140) was 
not made available in 1951. it was a nomen nudum there.

Ledermuelleriopsis plumosus - given that the diagnostic traits are 
accepted to distinguish the species - was made available. Animal 
belonging to family Stigmaeidae, animal size, feathered hairs, presence 
of a Rückenschild (dorsal scutum?), divergent hair size there and at 
distal margin.

Ledermuelleriopsis had no separate description. This alone would not be 
a problem, because only one new species was contained, so Art. 13.4 
would come into effect. The genus in this case would need no description 
(Art. 13.4) and a type species would be fixed by monotypy (satifying 
Art. 13.3).
The only problem is that the generic name was not indicated as 
intentionally new, as required by Art. 13.4. And this is why the 
availability fails.

It is often overlooked that a type species can be fixed by monotypy, and 
that in such a case a type fixation by original designation is not 
needed in Art. 13.3.

So Ledermuelleriopsis was indeed not made available in 1951.

 > Willmann also described 3 species (1951) in the genus Cheylostigmaeus 
(another mite), although it wasn't made available (by Willmann) until 
1952...

4 species, also C. angustimaxillatus was made available (p. 139), a 
description was given in passing by, inside the description of C. 
austriacus.

If you have online links to your other two examples I would be grateful 
and could check these, too.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 25.02.2025 um 19:48 schrieb Nicolson, David via Taxacom:
> 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%7C9e4b293d5b434aba632308dd55e46077%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761162189061056%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bXJmE5W6JpiXmo46DNbok1PdvHoQL81YZD1X5ZRTH4o%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%7C9e4b293d5b434aba632308dd55e46077%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761162189078281%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GsFA2xnOe0%2FPMVETycycIqOHWCf9Mj2QK8eEj%2FkMa%2Bk%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
> 
> 