Dear Colleagues.
I work with samples of marine sediments, I'm focussed to marine
invertebrates especially Polychaete worms, I have problems for
identification of the family Capitellidae. I think that they are four
genera that I have seen, but Im not sure, I need bibliography about
this subjet. I would appreciate some colaboration or suggestions.
Wilbert serrano
Apartado 10181
Lima 100
Peru
<d190065 at unmsm.edu.pe>
-- ANNELIDA
Discuss = annelida at net.bio.net = talk to all members
Server = biosci-server at net.bio.net = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
urces = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
in a list of rejected
>names.
The Principle of Priority (Article 23) is exactly what we are talking
about, so we can't see how invocation of this Article means the
Flabelligeridae can be maintained (except by an application).
>Flabelligeridae when it replaced Chloraemidae takes the original date of
>Chloraemidae. This is laid down in Article 40b(i) which states
>"[Flabelligeridae] takes the precedence of the replaced name of which it
>is deemed to be the senior synonym." Chloraemidae is 1849, Pherusidae
>is 1850. Pherusidae is not older and does not have priority. The previous
>1964 code actually had these words - "[Flabelligeridae] takes the date of
>the rejected name ..."
Article 40(b) is only relevant to the synonymy of Chloraemidae and
Flabelligeridae. For resolution of the issue of Flabelligeridae vs.
Pherusidae we must look elsewhere. Now Geoff means that, according to the
Code, the correct citation of the Flabelligeridae is Flabelligeridae St.
Joseph, 1894 (1849). However, this does not mean that Flabelligeridae is
fixed as a name from 1849. It is still a name from 1894 and hence junior to
Pherusidae 1850. The use of (1849) is a reference marker, a sign that a
synonymy has occurred. This would have all been perfectly fine, except for
Grube 1850 and Pherusea (=Pherusidae).
>The previous 1964 code actually had these words - "[Flabelligeridae] takes
>the date of the rejected name ..."
>Please, where is the flaw in that?
According to Article 23 we see the 'correct' name as Pherusidae Grube 1850,
and of course the 1964 Code is irrelevant at various levels.
Now Pherusidae was used last century by e.g., Hatschek 1893, but most
authors used Chloraemidae until Støp-Bowitz 1948 drew attention to St.
Joseph's (1894) Flabelligeridae. Since that time most authors have used
Flabelligeridae. So an application to suppress Pherusidae would almost
certainly be successful, under Article 23(b). We are not going to do it, we
prefer to ignore the issue, in print at least. But perhaps this is
something for those in the International Polychaetology Association
Nomenclatural Sub-Committee to get their feet wet over?
By the way, hopefully people may soon start hearing about an alternative
new Code, based on phylogenetic taxonomy, that is intended to replace the
ICZN Code (see, for those who may not have heard of phylogenetic taxonomy,
de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. (1994). Toward a phylogenetic system of
biological nomenclature. Trends Ecol. Evol., 9: 27-31.)
greg and fred (rouse and pleijel)
<gregr at bio.usyd.edu.au>
-- ANNELIDA
Discuss = annelida at net.bio.net = talk to all members
Server = biosci-server at net.bio.net = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
