Hi Javier,
First the straightjacket of the classic Linnaean-derived upper hierarchy is uncomfortable for most of us to use now. However, within it names above the family group are not regulated. There is no Code priority rule even if both priority and the practical usefulness of continuity can be taken into account in what we do. Names need not be based on a family and its type genus, and standardised name endings such as -iformia as used for polychaete suborders, if used, are not restricted to one rank. Names can move up and down in ranking without changing in suffix. The history of the higher rank name usages can be murky and uncertain. Stating authorship is rarely necessary in practice, but of course we cannot resist trying to establish who could take credit for a first use.
In the case of Phyllodocida a name using the family Phyllodocidae as basis for a group of families was certainly used before Dales (1962) as we have at least the Phyllodociformia of Levinsen (1883). Dales did not coin the name Phyllodocida as such, but he did set out an influential scheme using it as one of the labels. Modern wider use of Phyllodocida as group name demonstrably dates from the time of Dales' classification scheme. So let's give him the authorship! Noting also that family Phyllodocidae dates only from 1843, while both before and after that names based on the nereids were used for order ranks partly corresponding to what are the 'modern' Phyllodocida of Dales. For example Savigny, 1822 used Nereideae. Did I say it was a murky topic?
Geoff
________________________________________
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] on behalf of Javier Luque [javierluquec from gmail.com]
Sent: 20 December 2013 03:17
To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Subject: [Annelida] Authorities for Phyllodocida and Aphroditiformia
Deal Annelida folks,
I have been searching for the citations and authorities of the Order
Phyllodocida and the Suborder Aphroditiformia. I have checked the WoRMS
webpage, and several literature items including Fauchald, 1977, but the
information available appears to vary from author to author, and some
authors even do not cite the reference or authorities at all. For
Phyllodocida, some works cite Dales, 1962, as the authority. For
Aphroditiformia it is even more vague who should be the authority. Some
works I have read also advocate for the removal of superfamilial status,
and only keep familial, subrodinal and ordinal ranks.
Do you have any idea of who are the authorities and the citations where
those two taxa were first proposed? Do you know of any recent literature
item that might shed lights on the matter?
Many thanks for your help. Much appreciated.
Kind regards,
Javier
--
Javier Luque, Ph.D Student
Systematics and Evolution Group
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada
Center for Tropical Paleoecology and Archaeology
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Balboa-Ancón, Panama
Apartado 0843-03092
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida from net.bio.net
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net
--
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.
