Some observations on Nesillas aldabranus, the endangered brush warbler of Alsabra Atoll, with hypotheses on its distribution

Hambler, Clive; Hambler, K.; Newing, J.

doi:10.5479/si.00775630.290.1

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I have used the name Geochelone gigantea for several references to this species in my own textbook on conservation (Hambler, 2004, pp. 7, 361) and other publications ( Hambler et al, 1985Hambler, 1994;Linfield et al, 1993;Seaward et al, 1996). Both editions of a major student textbook on biogeography (Whittaker, 1998(Whittaker, , 2007 also use this name.…”

Section: Additional Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Comments

2009

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nomenclature of the genera related to Drosophila, as used in recent taxonomic papers, is based on the paper of Sturtevant (1942). However, Throckmorton (e.g. 1962) and subsequent authors recognised that the taxonomic relationships within the group are partly different and showed them on cladograms, without suggesting nomenclatural changes. Now it is quite apparent that the conception of Throckmorton is, in principle, correct and its modifications are presently discussed. After forty seven years, time is now more than mature to reflect the changes in the nomenclature. If the Commission maintains Drosophila funebris (Fabricius, 1787) as type species of the genus Drosophila Fallén, there are two possibilities how to reflect the situation: 1. Sophophora Sturtevant, 1939 would be elevated to the rank of genus and consequently many geneticists, physiologists, etc. would have to adopt the name Sophophora melanogaster for their favourite research subject. 2. Alternatively, more than ten currently independent genera would be connected with the genus Drosophila (see comment by P. Stys, BZN 65(2): 144). In this case, the currently independent genera Scaptomyza, with about fifteen subgenera, and probably Hypselothyrea, Phorticella and Zaprionus, with two subgenera each, would become part of the genus Drosophila. It is evident that the names of these genera, and/or their subgenera, could not then be used as genus-group names.On the other hand, accepting the proposition to use the name Drosophila s. s. for the genus based on D. melanogaster Meigen,1830 would also bring various constraints, as discussed in BZN 65(1) and 65(2). Apparently there is no perfect solution and I do not intend to anticipate the decision of the Commission. However, if D. melanogaster is to be accepted as type species of the genus Drosophila, the name of the present subgenus Drosophila (based on Musca funebris Fabricius, 1787) has to be changed at the same time. This nomenclatural act needs a comment.Apparently no suitable genus-group name, other than Drosophila, has ever been used for the present type species D. funebris. The only available name, Oinopota Kirby in Kirby and Spence, 1815, is based on Musca cellaris Linnaeus, 1758. Type material of M. cellaris does not exist. Although Meigen (1830) considered M. cellaris synonymous with M. funebris Fabricius, 1787, most subsequent authors have not accepted this synonymy and M. cellaris is considered a nomen nudum (e.g. Brake & Bachli, 2008). Moreover M. cellaris was not originally included in Drosophila and, in my opinion, cannot become the type species of the taxon currently known as Drosophila s.str.There are several genus-group names used for various subordinate taxa of the present genus Drosophila. The names Idiomyia Grimshaw, 1901 and Hypenomyia Grimshaw, 1901 should not be taken into consideration; they have been used for endemic Hawaian species now considered by many authors, including Brake & 2009. "COMMENTS." The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature 66(1), 70-88.

show abstract