|Publication Type:||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication:||2008|
|Journal:||Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature|
|Type of Article:||Comment|
|Full Text|| |
The type designation made by Levi (1971) is invalid, because it ignores the earlier type designation made by Latreille (1810). Levi (1971) suggested thatAranea diadema be designated as the type species of Aranea Linnaeus, 1758 andAraneus angulatus is confirmed as the type species of Araneus Clerk, 1758. If this approach was followed, Aranea would become an older objective synonym ofEpeira Walckenaer, 1805 and a junior subjective synonym of Araneus Clerk, 1758. The purpose of this action is unclear, as both species are considered to belong to the same genus. If in the future the recently accepted large genusAraneus is subdivided into smaller genera in such a manner that the species presently identified as Araneus angulatus and Araneus diadema will fall into different genera, these genera will get the hardly distinguishable names Araneusand Aranea respectively, instead of the distinct names Araneus and Epeira. If these taxa are elevated to the family-group rank, their names will become identical, and a new ruling by Commission will be necessary. The suggestion made by Levi (1971) does not clarify the situation with the recently used family name ARANEIDAE Latreille, 1806. When the family-group name ARANEIDAE was established, its type genus Aranea was interpreted as being based on Aranea domestica (which was subsequently designated as the type species by Latreille (1810)). This interpretation of Aranea is different from that based on the type species proposed by Levi (1971).
Comments on the proposed conservation of ARANEIDAE Clerck, 1758, Araneus Clerck, 1758 and Tegenaria Latreille, 1804 (Arachnida, Araneae) 4 (Case 3371)