BioStor
Sign in using Mendeley
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 COMMENTS ON THE PETITION CONCERNING PENEID NAJVIES (CRUSTACEA DECAPODA) (Z.N.(S.) 962) (see vol. 19 pages 103-114) By Martin D. Biirkenroad {Museo Nacional de Panama) 1. It is gratifying to find agreement that uniform spelling of names derived from Latin Peneus and Aristaeus is desirable (Holthuis, 1962, Bull. zool. Nom. 19(2) : 103-5). However, the proposal to spell all taxonomic names derived from Peneus with aett^, and all derived from Aristaeus with eus, seems still rather confusing. Accordingly, I would prefer to spell all of both sets of names in the simplest way, with eus. As noted by Holthuis, " Penaeus Fabricius is already placed on the Official List in that spelling " ; but this precedent is difficult for me to accept, for the following reason : The Commission's Direction 15 [Opinions and Declarations, 1955 ; 1, C, C5 : 74) states that " The publication of the present application [by Hemming on Peneus ; 1952, Bull. zool. Nom. 6: 318-9] elicited no objection to the action proposed in this case ". However, a letter from me objecting to the spelling aeus had been received and acknowledged. Should Direction 15 be reconsidered by the Commission, it would be feasible to separate the question whether Weber's prior Peneus is a nomen nudum, from the question whether the subsequent Fabrician spelling Penaeus ought to be preserved. Meanwhile, since no confusion will be caused if anyone wishes to write Trachy-penaeus, Aristaeomorpha, etc., for what I propose to spell Trachypeneus, Aristeo-morpha, etc., the rather Laputan orthographic question might perhaps be left to work itself out among practising authorities. 2. Holthuis also recommends (I.e.: 105-6, 113-4) that the works of TUesius (1814, 1818) on marine bioliiminescence be rejected for nomenclatural purposes. However, it is not explained why the rule of nomen oblitiun (Article 23b of the revised Code) needs reinforcement in this particular case. Under Article 23b, an historically -minded investigator who wished to pay a voluntary respect to the past could apply to the Commission for license to use a Tilesian name, but he would have to show that this use would serve the stability and imiformity of nomenclature (i.e. that a current name would not be displaced). This seems a satisfactorj^ situation ; whereas the accvunulation of inadequately indexed nomenclatural directives is a nuisance. 3. The petition under consideration {I.e.; pp. 106-7, 111-2) next recommends that the type-species of Metapeneus Wood-Mason be changed from Peneus ajfinis H. Milne-Edwards to P. monoceros Fabricius, on the gromids that " the name Metapenaeus proves not to be available at all for the genus containing Penaezis monoceros. As has recently been shown by Hall (1961, Bull. Raffles Mus. 26 : 93, 94), the type-specimen of Penaeus affinis . . . actually is a specimen of the species best known as Parapenaeopsis sculptilis (Heller, 1862) ". However, Hall seems to have misunderstood Bate's account of the Edwardsian material oi affinis (1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 179, fig 6), and to have over-looked the actual type -specimens of this species. Bate describes the material which he saw in Paris as consisting of " several specimens in the same bottle, labelled from Malabar ; and they evidently show that Milne-Edwards drew up his description from a female, with which it coincides . . . ". At the time of my own visit to Paris, in 1938, this bottle contained an adult male and two adult females of a species which has been described under the name Metapeneiis necopinans by Hall, 1956 {Bull. Raffles Mus. 27 : 86 ; synonynaized with Peneus mutatus Lanchester by HaU, 1961, I.e.), and which was correctly identified as affinis by Alcock (1906), Pesta (1913), de Man (1924), Bvu-kenroad (1934), Kubo (1954), etc. (nee " affinis " of Kishinouye, 1900 ; de Man, 1911 ; Kubo, 1949 ; Hall, 1956 ; etc.). Bate then goes on to say that BuU. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 20, Part 3. April 1963.

Identifiers

Export

Comments on the petition concerning peneid names (Crustacea Decapoda) (Z.N. (S.) 962)

M D Burkenroad and G Gunter
Bull. Zool. Nom. 20: 169-174 (1963)

Reference added over 5 years ago

Tweet 

Viewer

Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Title
áàåäçéèÉöøüæœß
Authors
One author per line, "First name Last name" or "Last name, First name"
Journal
ISSN
OCLC
Series
Volume
Issue
Starting page
Ending page
Date
Year
URL
DOI
 Update 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Page loaded in 0.62297 seconds