Dodecaceria

Geoff Read g.read at niwa.cri.nz
Fri Nov 8 03:33:03 EST 1996


[Sent to me for the list. This is the full and apparently already
published comments of the  Sub-Committee.  -- GBR]

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Fri, 8 Nov 1996 15:02:01 +1000
From:          path at amsg.austmus.gov.au (PatH)
To:               "Geoff Read" <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>
Subject:       Re: Dodecaceria


Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Dodecaceria 
concharum OErsted, 1843 and D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879) (Annelida,
Polychaeta) by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum (Case 2899;
see BZN 52: 27-33, 261-262, 329-331)

Kristian Fauchald
The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

Patricia A. Hutchings
The Australian Museum, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia 2000

Tomoyuki Miura
Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan 890

Alexander I. Muir
The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

	We write as the Nomenclatural Sub-Committee of the International
Polychaete Association with a response on the application (BZN 52: 27-33)
by Dr P.H. Gibson and Mr David Heppell to conserve the specific names of
Dodecaceria concharum OErsted, 1843 and D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879), the
comment by Pleijel & Mackie (BZN 52: 261-262), and the reply by Heppell &
Gibson (BZN 52: 329-331).

	1.  The argument that the creation of a neotype for Dodecaceria
concharum from outside the type locality will stabilise the name cannot
be substantiated.  The species within this genus have been so poorly
defined that they can only be separated by specialist polychaete
systematics.  Therefore it is not surprising that they have been
separated in marine faunas (which are compiled from records of
specialists) but not differentiated in ecological reports written by
generalists.

	2.  Pleijel & Mackie further suggest that the current distribution of
the genus in northern European waters may be more complicated than
currently thought and a correct historical interpretation will be less
likely to confuse future workers, and we strongly agree with this.  We
concur fully with Pleijel & Mackie's comment that if the designation of a
neotype for D. concharum is considered desirable then it should be from
one of the localities mentioned by OErsted.

	3.  The non-systematic literature on the genus Dodecaceria is sparse,
mainly consisting of papers on reproductive biology by Dr Gibson.  If he
publishes the correct name in his next paper it will be picked up by
future workers and no confusion will occur.

	4.  We therefore suggest that there is no need for the Commission to use
its plenary powers.  No confusion will result from agreeing with the
correct nomenclatural conclusion of George & Petersen (1991), rather than
the reasoning of Gibson & Heppell.  There is no justification for
suppressing the specific names requested by Gibson & Heppell: Nereis
sextentacula delle Chiaje, 1828 (see Muir, 198 9, for the dating of this
paper), Terebella ostreae Grube, 1853, Heterocirrus saxicola Grube, 1853
and H. ater Quatrefages, 1865.

Additional reference

Muir, A.I. 1989.  Species of the genus Sigalion (Annelida: Polychaeta)
reported from north-west European waters, with a note on the authorship
of the generic name.  Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 30: 33 9-345.

======================================================

-- ANNELIDA LIST
   Server address   =  biosci-server at net.bio.net (un/subscribes)
   Discussion address  =  annelida at net.bio.net  (talk to all members)
   List archives  =  URL:http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/



More information about the Annelida mailing list