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.
Forty years ago I was unsuccessful finding a designated type species for the genus Aranea and designated A. diadema L. as type (Levi. 1971, p. 133). It was overlooked by Kluge (Kluge, personal communication). I think this type designation solves the hypothetical problem presented by Kluge (Case 3371).
I strongly support N.J. Kluge’s application. This is in conformity with current usage. His proposals will prevent further useless digging in old works.
I fully agree with the statements and proposals made in this application. I
support the proposal, as the generic names Araneus and Tegenaria are very widely used and any other ruling would cause terrible and unnecessary confusion. Moreover, the solution proposed fully conforms to the presumed intentions of the original authors.
I found it strange that the names Oncopus and ONCOPODIDAE are pre-occupied, but I concur with the authors’ view about the inconvenience of using a new name for both taxa since these two names are widely used in the arachnological literature.