ITIS - incorrect specific epithet - Phallocryptus spinosus (H.Milne-Edwards, 1840)

[ManonGros]

Describe the problem: Message originally logged on the GBIF Feedback portal by @lmoliner: https://github.com/gbif/portal-feedback/issues/3891

According to the revision of the genus by Rogers (2003) the correct name should be Phallocryptus spinosa (H.Milne-Edwards, 1840) as all the previous names had spinosa as specific epithet.

Link to effected CoL webpages: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/76VJZ

Literature references: Rogers, D.C. (2003) Revision of the thamnocephalid Genus Phallocryptus (Crustacea; Branchiopoda; Anostraca). Zootaxa. 257: 1-14. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.257.1.1

[mdoering]

Apparently also so in his 2006 work: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307916299_Revision_Of_The_Thamnocephalid_Genus_Phallocryptus_Crustacea_Branchiopoda_Anostraca

Odd as the genus is clearly masculine and the epithet spinosa an adjective, which according to the code requires to be changed: https://code.iczn.org/formation-and-treatment-of-names/article-30-gender-of-genus-group-names/?frame=1

Is there more evidence than just "all the previous names had spinosa "? The original combination was female: Branchinella spinosa

[yroskov]

@DaveNicolson, for your attention

[DaveNicolson]

This is a puzzling case, and it does look initially that Phallocryptus spinosus (a masculine adjectival epithet in a masculine genus) would be correct, but I am trying to pull up some relevant publications to make sense of it. Will report back.

[mdoering]

WoRMS has it as spinosa and claims the original combination is Branchipus spinosa Milne-Edwards, 1840 ???

[DaveNicolson]

The original species name was Branchipus spinosus Milne-Edwards, 1840: Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, tome 3, p.367 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5601706 "Branchipe" - Branchipus (p.364-369, 4 species) B. stagnalis p.367 (Linnaeus name) B. spinosus p.367 (new species, clearly masculine, apparently adjectival) B. diaphanus p.368 (Prevost name) B. ferox p.369 (not noted as new or existing)

The crux of the matter is the gender of the genus Phallocryptus Biraben, 1951, which sure LOOKS masculine to me... But if there is some detail from its original description that forces it to be feminine then that would explain the treatments by Rogers (although there is no comment that I've found from him on that important detail). I'm awaiting a copy of the original description of Phallocryptus, which should help clarify matters. Rogers (2003:10) recognizes that the genus name means "hidden phallus", and it is tough to imagine that as feminine, but let's wait to see what Biraben wrote...

[DaveNicolson]

Belk & Brtek (1995:326), who use Branchinella spinosa, note it was "described in Branchipus; transferred to Branchinecta by Simon (1886); transferred to Branchinella by Daday (1910)"...

[mdoering]

@deepreef do intermediate combinations used in the past matter according to the code - unless it got conserved at some point? spinosa still seems wrong to me.

[DaveNicolson]

Intermediate combinations have no bearing on gender

[DaveNicolson]

Don't have the 1951 pub yet, but in it, Biraben seems to have described the new genus & species Phallocryptus salinicola... One possible pitfall is under the entry for "L. colo" here (under "Life"): https://archive.org/details/compositionofsci00brow/page/n485/mode/1up

It shows that words can be various genders with endings -colus / -cola / -colum, while the examples given includ some -cola words as masculine (m.) and some -cola words as common gender (c.). I know that this can get tricky under the zoological Code, so I do want to see exactly what Biraben did when establishing this genus and its (single?) species.

[DaveNicolson]

Biraben's 1951 publication establishing the monotypic genus Phallocryptus with species P. salinicola is attached. I see nothing explicitly noting gender, but the species was from the Salinas Grandes in Argentina, which are high-altitude salty waters, so dweller-in-Salinas or dweller-in-salty-waters seems like the meaning. I interpret the genus as masculine, and salinicola could be masculine or common gender (=masculine or feminine, either one, but not neuter), but in either case that doesn't force the generic gender.

ICZN Art. 30.1.4.2. is one way some genera could be forced as feminine by the initial author's combination usage, but would require the genus name is or ends in a word of common or variable gender... But I don't see this is the case (can anyone show that -cryptus is common or variable gender?? Even then, I don't see that salinicola qualifies as a clearly feminine adjective, even if it could technically be interpreted as the feminine form of salinicolus/salinicola/salinicolum !!) ... : "A genus-group name that is or ends in a word of common or variable gender (masculine or feminine) is to be treated as masculine unless its author, when establishing the name, stated that it is feminine or treated it as feminine in combination with an adjectival species-group name"

I am not seeing how this can be interpreted as anything but a masculine genus...!! @deepreef do you have any additional insight? 1951_Biraben_Phallocryptus_and_P_salinicola_NOV.pdf

[DaveNicolson]

Phallocryptus as "hidden phallus" per Rogers 2003 https://archive.org/details/compositionofsci00brow/page/n603/mode/1up [bottom of page] Gr. phallos, m. penis;

https://archive.org/details/compositionofsci00brow/page/234/mode/1up [bottom of page] Gr. krypto, hide, cover, conceal; [...]; kryptos; krybelos, hidden, secret;

[DaveNicolson]

The error in claiming the original name was Branchipus spinosA wasn't found in Rogers' (2003) revision of the genus (it correctly gives the original name as Branchipus spinosUS), but was found in Rogers' (2013) "Anostraca Catalogus", which cites the 2003 revision ...

But I don't see that ITIS' current combination is incorrect.

[lmoliner]

Hi all,

Fascinating discussion! unfortunately I'm not an expert in Branchiopoda, so I can't not add much to this debate, but I've been working on a review of 2,000 fAfrican species, so I'm very interested in all the references and names you are providing.

Thank you so much for replying so quickly and with such detail, I do appreciate it!

Regards,

Luis Moliner Cachazo PhD student at King's College London

Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef

---

From: DaveNicolson @.> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:18:07 PM To: CatalogueOfLife/data @.> Cc: lmoliner @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [CatalogueOfLife/data] ITIS - incorrect specific epithet - Phallocryptus spinosus (H.Milne-Edwards, 1840) (Issue #394)

The error in claiming the original name was Branchipus spinosA wasn't found in Rogers' (2003) revision of the genus (it correctly gives the original name as Branchipus spinusUS), but was found in Rogers' (2013) "Anostraca Catalogushttps://lkcnhm.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/app/uploads/2017/06/61rbz525-546.pdf", which cites the 2003 revision ...

But I don't see that ITIS' current combination is incorrect.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/data/issues/394#issuecomment-1040894591, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APUGDHXNLO43HKMDDQDJ2T3U3LNK7ANCNFSM5OOQK36A. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOShttps://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Androidhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[lmoliner]

Dear Dave,

Thank you for your replies, I've read again Rogers review from 2003 and you are right, the attached is a screenshot from page 7 of that review of the genus Phallocryptus in which he gives Phallocryptus spinosa as a new combination, and synonymises it with Branchipus spinosus, Branchinecta spinosa and Branchinella spinosa. I think this is a case in which the most useful would be to ask him directly by email, as I think the correct name (if included, and accepted within the genus Phallocryptus) should be Phallocryptus spinosus.

Regards,

Luis Moliner Cachazo PhD Student at King's College London

---

From: DaveNicolson @.> Sent: 15 February 2022 23:18 To: CatalogueOfLife/data @.> Cc: lmoliner @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [CatalogueOfLife/data] ITIS - incorrect specific epithet - Phallocryptus spinosus (H.Milne-Edwards, 1840) (Issue #394)

The error in claiming the original name was Branchipus spinosA wasn't found in Rogers' (2003) revision of the genus (it correctly gives the original name as Branchipus spinusUS), but was found in Rogers' (2013) "Anostraca Catalogushttps://lkcnhm.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/app/uploads/2017/06/61rbz525-546.pdf", which cites the 2003 revision ...

But I don't see that ITIS' current combination is incorrect.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/data/issues/394#issuecomment-1040894591, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APUGDHXNLO43HKMDDQDJ2T3U3LNK7ANCNFSM5OOQK36A. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOShttps://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Androidhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[DaveNicolson]

Got a little swamped with deadlines, but I have now emailed Dr. Rogers about this and provided the info & PDF. We are also squaring it all away in ITIS (should be available by end of month). Best, Dave

[lmoliner]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for letting me know, it would be very interesting to hear about this species from Dr Rogers.

Best wishes,

Luis

---

From: DaveNicolson @.> Sent: 24 February 2022 0:00 To: CatalogueOfLife/data @.> Cc: lmoliner @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [CatalogueOfLife/data] ITIS - incorrect specific epithet - Phallocryptus spinosus (H.Milne-Edwards, 1840) (Issue #394)

Got a little swamped with deadlines, but I have now emailed Dr. Rogers about this and provided the info & PDF. We are also squaring it all away in ITIS (should be available by end of month). Best, Dave

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/data/issues/394#issuecomment-1049345857, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APUGDHTAC7INMBNXB43NBSDU4VYLLANCNFSM5OOQK36A. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOShttps://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Androidhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>