Dear Michael, Geoff, and all,
Michaels's question is one that is of particular relevance to me, and you
will see that Geoff and I do not agree on the answer.
In my dissertation on Spionidae (1983), I described a new genus, Aonidella,
and a new species, Aonidella dayi. I did not otherwise publish the names at
the time. My dissertation was apparently read by Eduardo Lopez-Jamar, who
used the names in his 1989 paper (Primera cita para el litoral de la
Peninsula Iberica del genero Aonidella (Polychaeta: Spionidae), con una
redescription de la espece Aonidella dayi Maciolek 1983. Bol. Inst. Esp.
Oceanogr. 5:107-110). Lopez-Jamar reported the species as "Aonidella dayi
Maciolek, 1983" which we would all agree is not correct but does
acknowledge my dissertation as the basis for the validity of both the genus
and species. I contacted Claus Nielsen, a Commissioner of the ICZN. He and
P. Tubbs cited the 1985 Code, Article 50a, as the basis for citing the
genus and species as "Maciolek in Lopez-Jamar, 1989". I followed their
advice when I published on the genus in 2000 and acknowledged their input.
If you look at the WoRMS database, you will see that the editor (I presume
Geoff) lists the author of both genus and species as "Lopez-Jamar, 1989"
with the following note on the genus: "The dilemma here is that the author
is not Maciolek, who did not publish relevant content from her thesis
(where the name was initiated) until 2000. Clearly López-Jamar was only
referencing her earlier work rather than including her diagnostic (1983)
content, so the genus authorship formulation of Maciolek in López-Jamar as
used by Maciolek (2000) cannot be correct."
He (Geoff) also included the following note for the species A. dayi :
According
to Maciolek (2000) the description of López-Jamar, 1989 is based on and
extending her unpublished 1983 thesis description. However, López-Jamar
appears to be describing his own material from Golfo de Cadiz, and thus the
authorship cannot be Maciolek in López-Jamar. The circumstance is
undesirable and may require further resolution (for example to determine
what is the type material, if it exists). Nevertheless Maciolek (2000)
subsequently included Mediterranean and Canary Islands material in her
further description as well as material from offshore North America
Atlantic, although not the López-Jamar type material.
Clearly, Geoff and I differ on the interpretation of Article 50a (now
Article 50.1.1), but I think the advice of two Commissioners is sufficient
to resolve the issue.
cheers,
Nancy
Nancy J. Maciolek
