English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 26994/38795
Visitors : 2388524      Online Users : 32
RC Version 4.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Adv. Search
LoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ntour.ntou.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/45753

Title: Priority of the slipper lobster genus Crenarctus Holthuis, 2002, over Antipodarctus Holthuis, 2002 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Scyllaridae).
Authors: Tin Yam Chan;Shane Ahyong;Chien-Hui Yang
Contributors: 國立臺灣海洋大學:海洋生物研究所
Date: 2013
Issue Date: 2018-04-09T07:40:25Z
Publisher: Zootaxa
Abstract: Abstract: In revising the Indo-Pacific scyllarine lobsters, Holthuis (2002) proposed a new genus, Antipodarctus , for Scyllarus aoteanus Powell, 1949 (type locality: Great Barrier Island, New Zealand), and a new genus, Crenarctus , for two species, Scyllarus bicuspidatus De Man, 1905 (type species; type locality: Flores Sea, Indonesia) and S. crenatus (Whitelegge, 1900) (type locality: off Wata Mooli (= Wattamolla), New South Wales, Australia). According to Holthuis (2002), Antipodarctus is distinguished from Crenarctus only by the presence of an additional carina on the fourth antennal segment. Examination of the male holotype of A . aoteanus in 2009 (Auckland War Memorial Museum, registration number MA76171) revealed that the original diagnosis of Antipodarctus was incorrect — A . aoteanus does not have an additional carina on the fourth antennal segment and is indistinguishable from C . crenatus . Moreover, a recent molecular phylogenetic study of the slipper lobsters (Yang et al. 2012) showed that Antipodarctus and Crenarctus are indistinguishable and that A . aoteanus and C . crenatus are conspecific. Being conspecific, A . aoteanus and C . crenatus must also be congeneric and so both genera cannot be maintained. In the online appendix to their paper (Appendix A. Supplementary material, doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.09.019), Yang et al. (2012) assumed that the name Antipodarctus had priority over Crenarctus on the basis of page priority in Holthuis (2002) (p. 551 for Antipodarctus , p. 659 for Crenarctus ) (see discussion in Nemesio 2007). According to Article 24.2.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), however, priority of taxon names simultaneously published in the same paper is determined by the deliberate choice of the first reviser and not by order of appearance in the original publication. Additionally, the appendix of Yang et al. (2012) was only published as online supplementary information, rather than as part of the main printed article. In any case, the ‘action’ in the appendix would not be nomenclaturally valid because it was simply stating what the authors thought to be a Code requirement rather than being a deliberate First Reviser action (Article 24.2, ICZN 1999). The status of Antipodarctus and Crenarctus thus remains unresolved because no formal (Code-compliant) action has been taken to fix name priority.
Discover the world's research
Relation: 3701(40
URI: http://ntour.ntou.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/45753
Appears in Collections:[生命科學暨生物科技學系] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
index.html0KbHTML40View/Open


All items in NTOUR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

 


著作權政策宣告: 本網站之內容為國立臺灣海洋大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,請合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。
網站維護: 海大圖資處 圖書系統組
DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback