Taxonomic Swap 113831
(Committed on 2022-08-21)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
Quote from paper above:
Ocnodes Fåhraeus, 1870: 270 [F]. Type species: Ocnodes scrobicollis Fåhraeus, 1870,
by subsequent designation (Kamiński et al. 2019b: 55). Status: valid genus and
subgenus in Pimeliinae: Sepidiini: Molurina
Phanerotomea is neuter, so the adjective was scrobicolle
Adjectives ending in -is /-e work like this:
maskuline and feminine: -is
neuter: -e
Ocnodes scrobicollis is correct.
In Kaminski's catalogue of the tribe Sepidiini, Ocnodes is treated as masculine:
Ocnodes vagus
Ocnodes vaticinus
Ocnodes verecundus
Ocnodes vetustus
Feminine would be Ocnodes vaga etc
Fåhraeus does treat Ocnodes clearly as feminine: the second species is Ocnodes concinna - and all the adjectives in the description text come in feminine endings: subovata, nigra, nitida, glabra etc
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/9913352
But there is also some obscure rule for endings
30.1.4.4. A compound genus-group name ending in the suffix -ites, -oides, -ides, -odes, or -istes is to be treated as masculine unless its author, when establishing the name, stated that it had another gender or treated it as such by combining it with an adjectival species-group name in another gender form.
In this case however, the author treated it feminine!
My verdict: Sepidiini catalogue is not correct!
@beetledude
Now we have this one:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1410358-Ocnodes-rowleiana
which is correct as it was described as "Moluris Rowleiana" by Westwood
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14764428
(Moluris is feminine and rowleiana is then treated as an adjective)
"That is is a noun is also clear from the spelling with capital R by subsequent authors"
The Coleopt. Catalogus "proof" does not prove that. Capital letters are used to point out dedications to persons, not the character as a noun, seems to be the rule.
Compare "Psammodes" Erichsoni, Reichei, etc., simple genetive adjectives.
EDIT: The citation above has disappeared, also the link. Have changed opinion, @traianbertau ?
@borisb
Yes, have edited my comment because first I thought that the original species name by Westwood was "Moluris rowleianus" as stated in all websites GBIF etc. In this case it would be difficult to explain the masculine form in combination with the feminine noun Moluris. Hence my (wrong) assumption that it could a noun in apposition.
But then I finally found Westwoods original punblication and it is not "Moluris rowleianus" there but "Moluris Rowleiana" - and that makes it an ordinary adjective and has to change with genus swaps.
This thing is done - Ocnodes rowleiana is correct. And when this species will travel again to another generic shelter (as it does not fit in the concept of Ocnodes senu nov. after Kaminski with Ocnodes having smooth elytra) we do at least know how to treat the specific name then.
One mess resolved, I think.
BTW: Erichsoni, Reichei etc are nouns in genitive.
Thanks!
Above:
NO! Ocnodes is feminine.
(1) Knowledge of dead languages.
(2) Bouchard P, Bousquet Y, Aalbu RL, Alonso-Zarazaga MA, Merkl O, Davies AE (2021) Review of genus-group names in the family Tenebrionidae (Insecta, Coleoptera). ZooKeys 1050: 1–633. doi:10.3897/zookeys.1050.64217.
@borisb @traianbertau