Arucillus armasi Perez-Gonzalez & Vasconcelos 2003
Creators: name: Kury, Adriano B.
name: Alonso-Zarazaga, Miguel A.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2011
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Opiliones
Cosmetidae
Arucillus
Arucillus armasi

description: Arucillus armasi Pérez-González & Vasconcelos, 2003
Arucillus armasi Pérez-González & Vasconcelos, 2003: 135, figs 1–16 (types CZACC 3.2809, 3 holotype; CZACC and MNRJ paratypes).
Type locality. REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA. LA VEGA. La Nevera, Valle Nuevo, Constanza.
P. 39: Cocholla Roewer is wrongly dated as of 1927 in KC contra correctly 1928 in NN. Correct publication date of Cocholla (and of C. simoni Roewer) is February 1928 although nominal date is 1927.
P. 39: Cosmetellus Roewer is wrongly dated as of 1927 in KC contra correctly 1928 in NN. Correct publication date of Cosmetellus (and of C. columnaris Roewer) is February 1928 although nominal date is 1927.
P. 49: Cynorta v-flava González-Sponga, 1992 must be converted into Cynorta v-flav um, since gender of alphabet letters in Latin is neuter, and flavum must refer to the part of the name before it.
P. 50: This is a setting mistake: Cynortellina lineata Roewer, 1915 should be bold and separate, as a species.
P. 50: Cynortoides Roewer, 1912 is feminine, as treated originally by its author (Art. 30.1.4.4). Consequently, Cynortoides albiadspers a Goodnight & Goodnight, C. caraibic a (Sørensen), C. cuban a cuban a (Banks), C. cuban a signat a Roewer, C. marginat a Goodnight & Goodnight and C. quadrispinos a Goodnight & Goodnight.
P. 53: Denticynorta denticus (Walker, 1928): Roewer’s declension of denticus, a word looking like Latin, but not in any Latin dictionary, must be taken as an incorrect emendation, unless Walker stated it was an adjective or gave its etymology for us to decide. If not, it should be Denticynorta dentic us. Although the name is obviously derived from dens = tooth, as a possible truncation of “denticulus”, Latin rules do not apply.
P. 59: Eucynortoides Roewer, 1912 is feminine, as treated originally by its author (ICZN Art. 30.1.4.4). Consequently, E. maculat a Roewer and E. parvul a (Banks).
P. 67: Messa Sørensen, 1932 is unavailable, because it had originally no type species designated. Consequently the genus Messa must be adscribed to Mello-Leitão, 1933c, who was the first to provide a type species designation (Libitia (Messa) scalaris Sørensen, 1932) and a description (plus a reference to the original, unavailable description by Sørensen), fulfilling thus the requirements of Art. 13.1 and 13.3 of the Code. Messatana must stand (since Mello-Leitão’s name is still a homonym of Messa Leach, 1817 (Hymenoptera)) even if Strand mentioned Sørensen as author, since the author’s name is not a part of the scientific name (although this peculiarity should be quoted).
P. 67: Metacynortoides Roewer, 1912 is feminine, as treated originally by its author (Art. 30.1.4.4). Consequently, M. bilineat a Goodnight & Goodnight, M. obscur a obscur a (Banks), M. obscur a dorsalis Roewer, M. roman a Goodnight & Goodnight and M. scabros a (Banks).
P. 70: Metavononoides Roewer is wrongly dated as of 1927 in KC contra correctly 1928 in NN. Correct publication date of Metavononoides is February 1928 although nominal date is 1927.
P. 73: Neocynorta Roewer, 1915: The synonymy regarding Zaraxolia should be changed as follows: Zaraxolia Roewer, 1947: 27 (type species Zarax aenescens Sørensen, 1932 by original designation) [= Paecilaema: Goodnight & Goodnight, 1953 b] synonymy established by González-Sponga, 1992.
Remarks. Zarax Sørensen, 1932, was described without a type species. Thence, it is unavailable (Art. 13.3). Moreover it is a homonym (non Pascoe, 1867, Coleoptera).
Mello-Leitão (1933c: 111, 114) separated one of the original species in Zarax to be probably a Neocynorta, and described an available genus Zarax with type species by monotypy Zarax devians Sørensen, 1932 by monotypy. This genus is invalid because of homonymy as well.
However, Strand proposed in 1942 the genus Zaraxolia as a replacement name for Zarax of Sørensen (mentioning Mello-Leitão as well). So, Zaraxolia Strand, 1942 is available as a replacement name for Zarax Mello- Leitão, 1933c: 114. Its type species is the same as for the latter genus, and not Z. aenescens Sørensen, 1932, as mentioned in KC, following Roewer (1947).
In 1947, Roewer (p. 27) designated Z. aenescens Sørensen, 1932 as type species of Zaraxolia Strand, missing the fact that this genus already had another type species, so this designation is invalid, this not being the creation of a new genus. On p. 32, he proposed the new genus Zaraxes with type species Zarax devians Sørensen, 1932, already the type species of Zarax Mello-Leitão, 1933 and its replacement name Zaraxolia Strand, 1942.
So the real synonymies for the genera involved are:
Neocynorta Roewer, 1915
= Neocynorta Roewer, 1915b: 120. Type species by monotypy: Neocynorta virescens Roewer, 1915. = Zarax Sørensen, 1932 [part: Zarax aenescens]. Unavailable.
Zaraxolia Strand, 1942
= Zarax Sørensen, 1932 [part: Zarax devians]. Unavailable.
= Zarax Mello-Leitão, 1933c: 114 (non Pascoe, 1867, Coleoptera, nec Fruhstorfer, 1914, Lepidoptera). Type species by monotypy: Zarax devians Sørensen, 1932. Invalid, homonym.
= Zaraxolia Strand, 1942: 400. Replacement name for Zarax. Isotypic.
= Zaraxes Roewer, 1947: 32. Type species by original designation: Zarax devians Sørensen, 1932. Invalid, objective synonym.
P. 74: Paecilaema Koch, 1839 is correctly used as the right spelling in KC. NN wrongly mentions that Paecilaema Koch, 1839b Uebers. Arachnidens., 2: 11 (published December), is a lapsus for Paecilima Koch, 1839a Die Arachniden, 7(5): 104 (published July), which must have priority. If this statement were correct, all species names would have to be constructed with Paecilima as the valid generic name. Actually Koch (1839a), used both the forms Paecilima (p. 104) and Paecilaema (p. 107). Therefore, Paecilaema as used in Koch (1839b), is a fixation of the correct spelling by action of the first reviser.
Paecilaema (or Paecilima) is neuter, the inflection in gender should be corrected with the species in: P. acuriguens e González-Sponga, P. amazonic um González-Sponga, P. campoeliasens e González-Sponga, P. eutyp um (Chamberlin) (from the latinized Greek adjective eutypós “that can be shaped”), P. festiv um Kury, P. lateral e Goodnight & Goodnight and P. oblong um González-Sponga. The name P. albantica (Roewer) is doubtful, because it is not a Latin orthodox word, but that could be an adjective.
P. 80: Paecilaemana Roewer is wrongly dated as of 1927 in KC contra correctly 1928 in NN. Correct publication date of Paecilaemana (and of P. c r u x Roewer and P. halonata Roewer) is February 1928 although nominal date is 1927.
P. 81: Platymessa h-inscript um Mello-Leitão, 1941, since letters are neuter in Latin, and the adjective must refer to the letter, not to the genus.
P. 82: Prasiana Strand, 1942. The synonymy should be changed as follows:
Cynorta (Prasia): Sørensen, 1932: 1932: 379 (non Stål 1863, Hemiptera). Unavailable.
Prasia Mello-Leitão, 1933c: 113 (non Stål 1863). Type species Cynorta (Prasia) fallax Sørensen, 1932 by original designation. Invalid: junior homonym.
Prasiana Strand, 1942: 399. Replacement name. Isotypic.
Remarks. The subgenus Prasia included originally six species, without a designation of a type species, so the name is unavailable. When Mello-Leitão (1933c) elevated it to genus, he designated a type species, therefore erecting a new nominal genus. The homonymy was noted and corrected by Strand (1942), who mentioned mistakenly Sørensen as author of the genus.
P. 82: Pararhauculus Mello-Leitão is dated as of 1939 in KC contra 1940 in NN and ZR. Issue date is unknown, nominal date is 1939.
P. 83: Rhauculanus Roewer and Rhauculus Roewer are correctly dated as of 1928 in NN contra 1927 in KC. Correct publication date of Rhauculanus and Rhauculus (and of Rhauculanus lineolatus Roewer and of Rhauculus insignitus Roewer) is February 1928 although nominal date is 1927.
P. 84: Vononana Roewer is wrongly dated as of 1927 in KC contra correctly 1928 in NN. Correct publication date of Vononana (and of the combination Vononana peruviana) is February 1928 although nominal date is 1927.
P. 86: Zaraxes Roewer, 1947 is not the valid name for this genus, see discussion above under Neocynorta. The valid name is Zaraxolia Strand, 1942. Consequently, the valid combination for the species is Zaraxolia devians (Sørensen, 1932) comb. nov.
P. 86: Discosominae Pickard-Cambridge, 1904 (correctly it should have been spelled Discosomatinae) is permanently invalid because its type genus is a homonym (Art. 39).
P. 89: Tetracyphus Sørensen, 1932 is invalid because of homonymy: non Chevrolat, 1881, Coleoptera.
P. 90: Angistrisoma Roewer, 1932 was described without a type species designation and, thence, it is unavailable (Art. 13.3). Consequently:
Angistrisoma Soares & Soares, 1948b: 587 bon. gen. Type species by original designation: Angistrisoma fuscum Roewer, 1932.
= Angistrisoma Roewer, 1932: 338. Unavailable, no type species designation. = Angistrisoma Mello-Leitão, 1935b: 96. Unavailable, no type species designation. Gender of this genus is neuter. Consequently: A. atrolute um Roewer and A. fusc um Roewer.
P. 90: Aucayacuella Avram, 1983 [or, possibly, Avram & Soares, 1983] can have only one type species, not two as in KC. The designation associated with the oldest description of the genus is the valid one. However, it is not possible for now to firmly establish the precise publication dates of both papers. Avram (1983) has the nominal date April 1983, but the real date should be a few months later (O. Villarreal, pers. comm. 2009), while Avram & Soares (1983) is only dated “1983”, which makes the conventional date to be December 31st. NN (contra Avram, 1987) gave priority to Avram & Soares, 1983 over Avram, 1983. We here assume the opposite. Because in the second paper it is said it is a new genus, we have two genera which are homonyms, and, at the same time, synonyms. The type species should be treated accordingly. A summary of the contents of the two competing descriptions is:
(1) Avram, Apr 1983 (page 12): Aucayacuella gen. n., type species, by monotypy: Aucayacuella bordoni Avram (page 12), type material: 1 Ƥ holotype, 1 Ƥ paratype, Cueva de Tingo Maria, Peru, 16 Apr 1974 Bordón leg.
(2) Avram & Soares, Dec 1983 (page 61): Aucayacuella gen. n., type species, by original designation: Aucayacuella margaretae Avram & Soares (page 62), type material: 1 Ƥ holotype, 1 Ƥ paratype, Cueva de Tingo Maria, Peru, 16 Apr 1974 Bordón leg.
So, the interpretation should be:
Aucayacuella Avram, 1983
Aucayacuella Avram, 1983: 13 (type species Aucayacuella bordoni Avram, 1983, by monotypy). Aucayacuella Avram & Soares, 1983: 61 [junior subjective synonym of Aucayacuella Avram, 1983 by Avram (1987: 88); type species Aucayacuella margaretae Avram & Soares, 1983, by original designation)].
Aucayacuella bordoni Avram, 1983
Aucayacuella bordoni Avram, 1983: 13, figs 1–3; 1987: 88.
Aucayacuella margaretae Avram & Soares, 1983: 62, figs 50–53 [junior objective synonym of Aucayacuella bordoni Avram, 1983 by Avram (1987: 88)].
P. 97: The spelling Quidina was treated as a different genus from Quindina in NN (1939). However, NN quoted Quidina as being the only original spelling (but with incorrect date 1915 contra 1914 in KC), and recorded Quindina Roewer 1923 as being an emendation of the spelling. However, Roewer (1923, p. 564) used as valid the spelling Quindina and mentioned “ Quidina Roewer 1914 (err.)” acting thus as First Reviser (Art. 24.2).
P. 104: Ampycella Roewer, 1929 is incongruously listed under “ Gonyleptidae incertae sedis” (also p. 256), although below (pp. 152 and 282) it is listed under Ampycinae. This happened because the author originally intended a larger concept of Ampycinae and then, in the last minute, swayed by criticism, adopted a more cautious view, including a number of would-be ampycines in incertae sedis instead but leaving the lists unchanged. Ampycella should be included in the Ampycinae.
P. 104: Glysterus Roewer, 1931 is incongruously listed under “ Gonyleptidae incertae sedis” (also p. 256), although below (pp. 120, 152 and 291 ff.) it is listed under Ampycinae. See remarks above on Ampycella. Glysterus should be included in the Ampycinae.
P. 105: Hernandarioides Pickard-Cambridge, 1905 is feminine, as treated originally by its author (Art. 30.1.4.4). Consequently, H. plan a Pickard-Cambridge.
P. 105: Hernandarioides is incongruously listed under “ Gonyleptidae incertae sedis” (also pp. 140, 258), although below (p. 292)they are listed under Ampycinae. See remarks above on Ampycella. Hernandarioides should be included in the Ampycinae.
P. 105: Hernandria. After a recheck of the original description, it is evident that Banks did not mean the description of a new genus, but only of a new species in the genus Hernandaria Sørensen, 1884, and he misspelled the generic name. Consequently, Hernandria is unavailable and must be placed as an “incorrect subsequent spelling” of Hernandaria. Banks had the habit of describing new genera with the appropriate qualification, there is no reason to consider this as a valid description. However, NN gives it mistakenly as a valid genus. The valid genus name is Parahernandria Goodnight & Goodnight, 1947c: 14, and the species included in it are Parahernandria spinosa (Banks, 1909), comb. nov. and P. v e n t r a l i s (Banks, 1914) restored combination.
P. 105: Hernandria / Parahernandria Goodnight & Goodnight are incongruously listed under “ Gonyleptidae incertae sedis” (also p. 256), although below (pp. 120, 291) they are listed under Ampycinae. See remarks above on Ampycella. Parahernandria should be included in the Ampycinae.
P. 105: Hutamaia Soares & Soares, 1977 is incongruously listed under “ Gonyleptidae incertae sedis”, although below (pp. 152, 258, 268, 285) it is listed under Ampycinae. See remarks above on Ampycella. Hutamaia should be included in the Ampycinae.
P. 105: Neopachyloides Roewer, 1913 is incongruously listed under “ Gonyleptidae incertae sedis” (also p. 259), although below (pp. 152, 153, 274, 281, 285) it is listed under Ampycinae. See remarks above on Ampycella. Neopachyloides should be included in the Ampycinae.
P. 105: Nesopachylus Chamberlin, 1925 is incongruously listed under “ Gonyleptidae incertae sedis” (also p. 259), although below (pp. 152, 292) it is listed under Ampycinae. See remarks above on Ampycella. Nesopachylus should be included in the Ampycinae.
P. 106: Sibollus Roewer, 1929 is incongruously listed under “ Gonyleptidae incertae sedis” (also p. 260), although below (pp. 153, 285) it is listed under Ampycinae. See remarks above on Ampycella. Sibollus should be included in the Ampycinae.
P. 106: Thaumatopachylus Roewer, 1929 is incongruously listed under “ Gonyleptidae incertae sedis” (also p. 261), although below (pp. 153) it is listed under Ampycinae. See remarks above on Ampycella. Thaumatopachylus should be included in the Ampycinae.
P. 108: Cnemoleptes Mello-Leitão 1941: Add as a synonym:
Cnemoleptus: Neave, 1942: 55 (incorrect subsequent spelling).
P. 113: Pristocnemis Koch, [Dec.] 1839 is wrongly chosen over Pristocnemus Koch, [July] 1839 in KC. Koch initially created Pristocnemus (1839a) and later changed the spelling to Pristocnemis (1839b), supposedly more euphonic or more correct, but nevertheless only a subsequent incorrect spelling.
P. 120: Huasampilia Roewer, 1913 should be Huasampil l ia. The index in KC (p. 321) contains both forms.
P. 121: Nemoribalta Mello-Leitão is correctly dated as of [December] 1941 in KC contra wrongly 1942 in NN.
P. 122: Nictheroya Mello-Leitão, 1926: 352, is not a nomen nudum since there is a description in a key. However, there is no species mentioned, the first being N. incerta Mello-Leitão, 1927 (in Mello-Leitão, 1927: 19), which becomes the type species by subsequent designation.
P. 123: Currala Roewer is correctly dated as of 1927 in KC contra wrongly 1928 in NN. The cover of the fascicule bears 30-XII-1927 which is accepted here as issue date.
P. 123: Deltaspidium Roewer is correctly dated as of 1927 in KC contra wrongly 1928 in NN. The cover of the fascicule bears 30-XII-1927 which is accepted here as issue date.
P. 123: Gonyleptes scaber Kirby is wrongly dated as of 1818 in KC contra correctly 1819. This paper must be dated as of 2 July 1819, according to Raphael (1970).
P. 123–4: Friburgoia Mello-Leitão is wrongly dated as of 1931 in KC contra correctly 1932. The correct date for the publication where this appeared is 31 December 1932 (not 1931), the only date appearing in the volume being 1932 (which has been correctly assumed for the type species). This modifies the nomenclature proposed by KC as follows:
Schenkelibunus Strand, 1932: 138 [3 September 1932]
= Hanseniella Mello-Leitão, 1927b: 18 [non Bagnall, 1913, Symphyla] = Friburgoia Mello-Leitão, 1932: 72, syn. nov. [31 December 1932] = Ziltaia Mello-Leitão, 1936b: 27
and the included species are: Schenkelibunus impar (Mello-Leitão, 1932) and Schenkelibunus perditus (Mello- Leitão, 1927), both comb. nov. There is no such thing in the Code as a “combination by implication”, as mentioned by the author, although there is no need to place the new genus in front of the combined species, just the mention that the species belongs to the combining genus.
P. 124: Geraecormobiella Mello-Leitão 1931 is wrongly spelled Geraecomorbiella in KC. According to NN, the correct spelling is Geraecormobiella. Geraecormobiella is consistently cited on pages 127, 128, 145 in Mello- Leitão. Geraecomorbiella in KC is a subsequent incorrect spelling.
P. 127: Gonyleptes is wrongly dated as of 1818 in KC contra correctly 1819. This paper must be dated as of 2 July 1819, according to Raphael (1970). Consequently, Gonyleptes Kirby, 1819: 450, and G. horridus Kirby, 1819 (on p. 128).
P. 127: Gonyleptes curvicornis Mello-Leitão, 1932 is a secondary homonym of Weyhia curvicornis Roewer, 1913 (now in synonymy of G. horridus, p. 128) and must be replaced. Names in synonymy are also combinations with the genus where they are included and compete for homonymy. Consequently we create Gonyleptes melloleitaoi Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga nom. nov. as a replacement name for Mello-Leitão’s name.
P. 127: This is a misprinting: G. espiritosantensis should be formatted as a species heading in bold and italics.
P. 130: Gonyleptilus Roewer is correctly dated as of 1927 in KC contra wrongly 1928 in NN. The cover of the fascicule bears 30-XII-1927 which is accepted here as issue date.
P. 134: Multumbo Roewer is correctly dated as of 1927 in KC contra wrongly 1928 in NN. The cover of the fascicule bears 30-XII-1927 which is accepted here as issue date.
P. 134: Bunoweyhia Mello-Leitão, 1935 (currently under the synonymy of Neosadocus Mello-Leitão, 1926) is unavailable because it had no original type species designation (Art. 13.3). Validation of a name in synonymy after 1960 (even if a type species is invalidly designated) is also invalid (Art. 11.6.3).
P. 136: This is a misprinting causing confusion: Piassagera Roewer, 1928 should be in larger type and bold, with the genus name in italics; otherwise it seems to be a synonym of Parapachylibunus, which, being a nomen nudum, should have been set in a different way (v.g. between brackets).
P. 137: Leptogonys Mello-Leitão is correctly dated as of [December] 1931 in KC contra wrongly 1932 in NN.
P. 137, right column, lines 9–10 from bottom (“remarks” in Sphaerobunus Roewer, 1917): There is no page priority recognised in the Code. The “present designation” is a choice of the First Reviser.
P. 143: The epithet acanthoproctus is a substantive in apposition (from Greek proktós, anus), thence invariable. Consequently, Mangaratiba acanthoproct us (H. Soares, 1968).
P. 143: The epithet angulispinosis is a faulty Latin construct, either deliberate or inadvertent. Unless it can be demonstrated that it is a mistyping or lapsus for angulispinosa (in combination with Piresa) originally (Art. 32.5.), it must be taken as a substantive in apposition, thence invariable (Art. 31.2.2, 31.2.3, 32.3). Consequently, Mangaratiba angulispinos is (H. Soares, 1966).
P. 143: Following data should be added after Thaumatoleptes rugosus Roewer, 1930:
Thaumatoleptes rugosus Roewer, 1930 … Mendes & Kury, 2003: 152, figs 1–11 (redescription). RECORD. BRAZIL. Fernando de Noronha Island (Mendes & Kury, 2003).
P. 146: Discocyrtoides Mello-Leitão, 1923, according to NN (vol. 2, 1939: 121) is an incorrect original spelling for Dyscocyrtoides. Both spellings are present in the original paper, so, the second is valid because Neave acted as first reviser.
P. 149: Dolichoscelis Hope is wrongly dated as of 1837 in KC contra correctly 1836 in NN. Correct publication date of Dolichoscelis is between 21 June and 9 July 1836 although nominal date is 1837 (Raphael 1970).
P. 151: Batomites Mello-Leitão 1931 is unavailable because it had no original type species designation.
P. 152: This is a setting problem: Ruschia vellutina should be in bold type.
P. 153: The spelling Acanthpachylus Roewer is the only original spelling and should stand, but Roewer (1923) placed it in the synonymy of the genus Acanthopachylus and this spelling, which is an unjustified emendation (Art. 33.2.1), is in predominant use and according to Art. 33.2.3.1 it must stand, keeping its original author and date.
P. 154: Gonyleptes aculeatus Kirby is wrongly dated as of 1818 in KC contra correctly 1819. This paper must be dated as of 2 July 1819, according to Raphael (1970).
P. 155: The heading for genus Acrographinotus has wrong author and date. It should be Holmgren, 1916, as in the synonymic list. Acrographinotus Holmgren is not a nomen nudum, since it had a description, although no species was mentioned. The type species is correctly cited.
P. 155: Ctatoproceros Soares & Bauab-Vianna is wrongly dated as of 1972 in KC contra correctly 1973 in NN. Vo l u m e 2 9 o f Acta Zoologica Lilloana was published, according to its colophon, on 31-V-1973.
P. 156: Antetriceras Roewer, 1949 is neuter. Consequently, A. signat um Roewer. Remarks. Genera ending in –c eras (from Greek keras, “horn”) are neuter.
P. 157: Biconisoma Roewer, 1936 is neuter. Consequently, B. mirabil e Roewer. Remarks. Genera ending in –soma (from Greek soma, “body”) are neuter.
P. 157: Bunoplus Roewer is correctly dated as of 1927 in KC contra wrongly 1928 in NN. The cover of the fascicule bears 30-XII-1927 which is accepted here.
P. 157: Caldanatus Roewer is correctly dated as of [15 July] 1943 in KC contra wrongly 1945 in NN.
P. 158: Camposicoloides B. Soares and Capichabesia B. Soares are correctly dated as of [12 December] 1944 in KC contra wrongly 1945 in NN.
P. 158: Pseudoneogonyleptoides B. Soares is correctly dated as of [12 December] 1944 in KC contra wrongly 1945 in NN.
P. 159: Chaquesia B. Soares is correctly dated as of [12 December] 1944 in KC contra wrongly 1945 in NN.
P. 159: Discocyrtulus Roewer is correctly dated as of 1927 in KC contra wrongly 1928 in NN. The cover of the fascicule bears 30-XII-1927 which is accepted here as issue date.
P. 160: Discocyrtulusoma Piza 1943 appears wrongly spelled as Discocyrtulosoma in KC. The synonym should be added:
Discocyrtulosoma: Kury, 2003: 160 [incorrect subsequent spelling].
P. 161. Discocyrtus confusus Kury, 2003 is unavailable. Replacement names can only be proposed for available names (Art. 13.1.3) which are invalid for any reason (usually homonymy), and Gonyleptes curvipes sensu Roewer, 1913 is a misidentification, that is, an unavailable name. This species is here re-described as a new species:
Discocyrtus confusus Kury, sp. nov.
Holotype: 1 3, Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, labelled: 1) Discocyrtus curvipes Kollr. = Gonyleptes curvipes Kllr. 1847. II.49; 2) Gonyleptes curvipes Kllr. = Discocyrtus curvipes Kllr. Brasilien 1847. II.49.
Description: Ocularium very narrow with a pair of small parallel spines mostly fused together. Scutal areas III– IV entirely fused. Area IV with a pair of small paramedian acuminate tubercles. Prolateral-apical apophysis of coxa IV short, reaching middle of adjacent trochanter. Trochanter IV of male short, with 1 dorsal and 2 dorso-retrolateral spiniform apophyses. Femur IV of male sigmoid, with 2 dorso-medial and a row of 8 retrolateral robust spiniform apophyses, plus a pair of stout apical spurs. Patella and tibia IV of male unarmed. Etymology: the specific epithet is a Latin adjective of evident sense, based in the confuse nomenclatural and taxonomical history of this species.
Synonymy: Gonyleptes curvipes sensu Roewer, 1913: 231, fig 96 [misidentification]
Discocyrtus confusus Kury, 2003: 161 [unavailable name, proposed as a replacement name for Gonyleptes curvipes sensu Roewer, another unavailable name].
P. 162: Pachyloides fischeri Müller and Pachyloides tuberculatus Müller are wrongly dated as of 1918 in KC contra correctly 1917.
P. 167: Eugyndes Roewer is correctly dated as of 1923 in KC contra wrongly 1913 in NN.
P. 167: Pucrolioides Roewer is wrongly cited as the correct spelling in KC contra correctly Pucroloides in NN. Pucrolioides is spelled as Pucroloides in NN, as if it were original from Roewer, Neave cites however page 27. Roewer (1913) has both spellings: Pucroloides in a key to genera (page 10) and Pucrolioides in the description and figure caption (pages 27–28). Roewer (1923: 403) acted as first reviser and fixed the name Pucroloides.
P. 170: Goodnightiella Soares & Soares is correctly dated as of [5 July] 1945 in KC contra wrongly 1946 in NN.
P. 171: Vitiches Roewer is correctly dated as of 1927 in KC contra wrongly 1928 in NN. The cover of the fascicule bears 30-XII-1927 which is accepted here.
P. 171: The genus name is wrongly spelled Wygodzinskya, while the type species is correctly written using Wygodzinsky i a Soares & Soares.
P. 173: Iandumoema is wrongly dated as of 1996 in KC contra correctly 1997 in ZR. Correct publication date of Iandumoema is 18 July 1997 although nominal date is 1996.
P. 173: Ibarra Roewer is correctly dated as of 1925 in KC contra wrongly 1926 in NN. Publication date is 1 October 1925, although nominal date is 1926.
P. 174: The following species and records should be added before Lacronia serripes (Mello-Leitão):
Lacronia camboriu Kury, 2003
Lacronia camboriu Kury, 2003b: 33, figs 15–28 (types MNRJ 4956, 3 holotype, 1 3 paratype; MNRJ 5990, 2 3 6
Ƥ paratypes).
TYPE LOCALITY. BRAZIL. SANTA CATARINA. Balneário Camboriú, Praia da Laranjeira. RECORD. BRAZIL. SANTA CATARINA. Itajaí, slope of hill close to the sea, in bromeliads (Kury, 2003).
Lacronia ricardoi Kury, 2003
Lacronia ricardoi Kury, 2003b: 31, figs 1–14 (types MZSP 21373, 3 holotype, 1 Ƥ 1 juv. paratypes; MZSP 10589, 1 Ƥ paratype).
TYPE LOCALITY. BRAZIL. SÃO PAULO. Peruíbe, in bromeliads.
Lacronia serripes (Mello-Leitão, 1923)
Lacronia serripes (Mello-Leitão, 1923) … Kury, 2003b: 30. RECORD. BRAZIL. SÃO PAULO. Salesópolis, Boracéa (Kury, 2003b).
P. 180: Pachyloidellus Müller is wrongly dated as of 1918 in KC contra correctly 1917. The right date of Müller is 1917. Also Pachyloidellus fuscus (p. 181).
P. 185: Apophysigerus Canals is correctly dated as of 1935 in KC contra wrongly 1934 in NN. Issue date of the privately published Canals' paper is 18 September 1935.
P. 187: Passosa Roewer is wrongly dated as of 1927 in KC contra correctly 1928 in NN. Correct publication date of Passosa is February 1928 although nominal date is 1927.
P. 188: Pseudogyndes Mello-Leitão, 1932, as well as all genera ending in – gyndes, are masculine, being Gyndes originally a masculine name for a river in Mesopotamia. Consequently, P. m a rg i n a t us Roewer.
P. 189: Punagraphinotus Soares & Bauab-Vianna is wrongly dated as of 1972 in KC contra correctly 1973 in NN.
P. 189: Add to Canestrinia after Berlese, 1881 also “nec Mégnin & Trouessart, 1884, Arachnida”.
P. 189: Melloinia Thor is correctly used as the right spelling in KC. NN uses as valid the spelling Melloini o Thor, 1933. Only the spelling Melloinia with “a” appears consistently 3 times in Thor`s paper. Melloinio with “o” is a misspelling in NN. So, add to Melloinia as a synonym:
Melloinio Neave, 1940, vol. 3: 97 [incorrect subsequent spelling].
P. 189: Pygophalangodus canalsi Mello-Leitão is wrongly dated in the heading as of 1930 but correctly in the reference as 1931. Correct publication date of Mello-Leitão (1931a) is 30 June 1931 not 1930. Moreover, in KC it is said that the combination Mello-Leitãoella canalsi is made by Strand “by implication”. This concept is absent from the Code, and combinations must be made by putting in paper the name of a genus and the name of a species together, or by saying that species A belongs to genus B. No “supposed” or “implicit” combinations are recognised, even when a new generic replacement name is proposed (Art. 48).
P. 190: Oxyrhyna is wrongly spelled in KC (incorrect subsequent spelling) contra correctly Oxyrh i na, as in NN. The correct original spelling by B. Soares (1944) is Oxyrh i na. Oxyrhina is a junior homonym of Oxyrh i na Agassiz, 1835, Pisces.
P. 193: Tarmapachylus Roewer, 1956 is correctly spelled in KC contra wrongly in NN as Tarm o pachylus, The original has been checked for alternative spellings and only Tarmapachylus is present.
P. 193: Authorship of Tingomaria is correctly attributed to Mello-Leitão in KC contra wrongly as having two authors: Mello-Leitão & A. Feio in NN. The paper in question is authored by Mello-Leitão & A. Feio, but it is explicitly stated in the text that Mello-Leitão alone did the part of Opiliones. Tingomaria is wrongly dated as of 1948 in KC contra correctly 1949 in NN. The nominal date of the paper is 1948, but issued only in 1949.
P. 197: Leptocnemus Koch, [July] 1839 is wrongly listed in KC as preoccupied by Leptocnemus Dejean, 1834 and to be replaced by Leptocnema Koch, [Dec.] 1839. But Leptocnemus Dejean is a nomen nudum (checked). Consequently, there is no homonymy and Leptocnemus Koch, 1839 should stand, as it has precedence over Leptocnema by a few months.
P. 198: Progonyleptoidellus Piza, 1940 is correctly spelled in KC contra wrongly in NN as Progonylept io dellus. The original has been checked for alternative original spellings – it has no summary nor table of contents nor key, so the name, derived from Progonyleptoides, is written with -oi- twice on page 63, and once in the legend facing plate 2.
P. 199: Stignobates Mello-Leitão 1926 is wrongly tagged in KC as a nomen nudum with the definitive description Stygnobates Mello-Leitão 1927 as the valid description and spelling. Stignobates appeared in a key (Mello-Leitão 1926: 358) and it is available, even if there were no species included (Art.12.1), because the key is a description. Mello-Leitão gave as type species Stygnobates [sic!] barbiellinii by subsequent designation in 1927, and this is enough. NN wrongly considers both names as different descriptions, which is wrong.
The spelling Stignobates has been used only in the original description in 1926. Since 1927, the spelling Stygnobates, athough being an incorrect subsequent spelling (Art. 33.3), has been consistenly used in all works known to us dealing with this genus. In application of Art. 33.3.1, we deem that the correct name for the genus is Stygnobates Mello-Leitão, 1926 (type species, S. barbiellinii Mello-Leitão, 1927 subsequent designation).
P. 200: The name Olynthoidae Sørensen, 1932 is permanently invalid, because its type genus is a homonym (Art. 39).
P. 201: Bissulla Roewer, 1929 is correctly spelled in KC contra Bissula in NN. Bissulla with –ll- appears once in the key (page 182), 3 times in the description and figure caption (page 214) and once in the alphabetic index (page 283). In the original description there is no spelling of Bissula with –l-, this being Neave’s subsequent misspelling (to be added to the synonymy).
P. 201: Bunostigma Mello-Leitão, 1935 is neuter. Consequently, B. singular e Mello-Leitão. Remarks. Genera ending in –stigma (from Greek stigma, “mark” or “spot”) are neuter.
P. 202: Liops Mello-Leitão, 1940 (non Fieber, 1870, Hemiptera, nec Gidley, 1906, Mammalia). This name is a homonym and must be replaced by its first available synonym, Corcovadesia Soares & Soares, 1954. Consequently, C. hexabunus (Mello-Leitão, 1940) comb. nov. and C. venefic a (H. Soares, 1966), comb. nov.
P. 203: The authorship of Poecilosophus is correctly attributed to Mello-Leitão in KC contra wrongly as having two authors: Mello-Leitão & A. Feio in NN. The names of Opiliones in that joint work by Mello-Leitão & Feio are authored only by Mello-Leitão. Poecilosophus is wrongly dated as of 1948 in KC contra correctly 1949 in NN. In KC, Poecilosophus Mello-Leitão in Mello-Leitão & Feio has priority over Soaresula Roewer. The date of publication of Mello-Leitão & Feio is not known with certainty, the nominal date being 1948, and we adopt that of the entry of the volume in the library of the Museu Paraense “Emilio Goeldi” (4th July 1949, F.J. Cavalcante, pers.comm.) in agreement with the provisions of Art. 21.7. Roewer (1949b) was nominally issued in July 1949 and the application of the provisions of Art. 21.3.1 obliges us to date it as of 31st July. The precedence is thus kept as in KC, but with more accurate dates.
P. 203: Monticola B. Soares, 1944: Add as well “nec Nalivkin, 1930, Brachiopoda”.
P. 204: Olynthus Sørensen, 1932: NN gives “ Hübner, 1819 ”, as well as recent authors. Add also: “nec Haeckel, 1869, Spongiaria”.
P. 205: Strangely, NN gives, besides the replacement name Tachusina by Strand, 1942, a replacement name T u chusina in the same paper. It is Neave's mistake, Strand 1942 paper has only Tachusina.
P. 207: Belemnodes correctly appears in KC as a valid replacement name for Belemnus. But, as the problem is complex, it is discussed here: Fischer de Waldheim (1817: 450) considered that – ites is an ending exclusive of fossils, so, having discovered alleged recent species of Belemnites would be sufficient motive to change Belemnites to Belemnus. Belemnus Fischer de Waldheim, 1817 could be interpreted as an incorrect subsequent spelling (a lapsus) for Belemnites, and, consequently, would have no status in nomenclature, and could not compete with Belemnus Roewer, 1932. However, Belemnus Fischer is an unjustified emendation, which acquires author and date and is available (cites and replaces Belemnites). Fischer’s name could be otherwise construed as a ‘regular’ new genus name, established in combination with a name for a living species; anyway, in this case too the implication for Roewer’s name would be the same. This implies that Belemnus Roewer is a junior homonym and must be replaced by the first synonym available. So, Belemnodes Strand, 1942 is a valid replacement name for Belemnus.
P. 207: Cranellus Roewer, 1932 (non Cranellus Tobias, 1844, Aves [checked]). This name is a homonym and must be replaced. We propose the following replacement:
Narcellus Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga, nom. nov. Type species: Cranellus balthazar Roewer, 1932. Etymology: anagram of Cranellus. Gender masculine. Description: same as that of Cranellus in Roewer, 1932: 310; (Art. 13.1.2). Accordingly, the following new combinations are made: Narcellus balthazar (Roewer, 1932) comb. nov. and Narcellus montgomeryi (Goodnight & Goodnight, 1947) comb. nov.
P. 211: Euminua Sørensen, 1932 is unavailable, because it was described without a type species designation. Authors who treated the genus later failed to give a type species, as requested by the Code. Designation of a type species in KC does not make available the genus with Kury, 2003 as author and date because he failed to fulfil the requirements of Art. 16.1. This genus is here described as new:
Euminua Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga, gen. nov. Type species: Euminua brevitarsa Sørensen, 1932. Description: same as that of Euminua in Sørensen, 1932: 239 (Art. 13.1.2). Gender feminine.
P. 211: Euminuoides longitarsa (Sørensen, 1932): This combination must be taken from Mello-Leitão (1935b: 92), when citing the type species (it is enough to include a species in a genus, there is no need to write the combination as it should be). The spelling longitarsis is an incorrect subsequent spelling.
P. 211: Fudeci González-Sponga is wrongly dated as of 1997 in KC contra correctly 1998 in Zoological Record. Publication date is October 1998.
P. 212: Metakimula botosaneanui (Avram, 1973) is a new combination in KC and lacks the parentheses around author and date.
P. 212: Minua Sørensen, 1932 is unavailable, because it was described without a type species designation. Authors who treated the genus later failed to give a type species, as requested by the Code. Designation of a type species in KC does not make available the genus with Kury, 2003 as author and date because he failed to fulfil the requirements of Art. 16.1. Being the name of a king, if available, it would be masculine in gender, not feminine as treated in KC and originally by its author. This genus must be replaced with its available synonym Minuella Roewer, 1949, which is feminine. Consequently the species must be named: Minuella barloventensis González-Sponga, 1987, M. crassa González-Sponga, 1987, M. choroniensis González-Sponga, 1987, M. denticulata González-Sponga, 1987, M. dimorpha (Sørensen, 1932), M. elias (Sørensen, 1932), M. guatopensis González-Sponga, 1987, M. momoyana González-Sponga, 1987, M. montis González-Sponga, 1987, M. nebulae González-Sponga, 1987, M. parva González-Sponga, 1987, M. pinturelensis González-Sponga, 1987, M. punctiacuta González-Sponga, 1987, M. scabra (Sørensen, 1932) and M. venefica González-Sponga, 1987. Despite his false reasoning, González-Sponga’s (1987) nomenclature is the valid one.
In this case, the family name Minuidae is also unavailable, being based on an unavailable genus. Consequently, the next available synonym would have to be used: Minuididae Mello-Leitão, 1933 (type genus: Minuides Sørensen, 1932). But Pérez- González & Kury (2007) excluded Minuides from this family and a new family name, Kimulidae Pérez-González, Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga 2007, had to be created.
P. 214: The synonym Lolinae Kratochvíl, 1958 lacks a reference, which is: Kratochvíl, J. (1958) Die Höhlenweberknechte Bulgariens (Cyphophthalmi und Laniatores). Práce Brn ě nské základny Ceskoslovenské akademie v ě d, 30(375): 372–396.
P. 219: Acanthocheir Lucas is wrongly dated as of 1860 in KC contra correctly 1861. Part 4 of the 8th volume of 3rd series of the Annales de la Société entomologique de France can be dated from its reception in the Bulletin of Séances as of 15 May 1861.
P. 220: Metapachylus Banks, 1909: This supposed genus simply does not exist. There is a description of Metapachylus rugosus as a new species, now Pachylicus rugosus (see KC, p. 248) in the pre-existing genus Metapachylus Pickard-Cambridge, 1905 (which is a junior homonym of a beetle name, see below). No new heading for this “new” genus is found, as it was customary in Banks’s papers, so this mention is to be cancelled. The mistake is to be attributed to Goodnight & Goodnight, 1942, who considered it valid by synonymizing it under Sitalcina Banks, 1911. It seems that they intended to indicate that the Metapachylus species of Banks should not be included in Metapachylus proper and just forgot to add “(part)”.
P. 222: Podoctidae Roewer, 1912: The original reference is lacking. It should be there even if described from outside the Americas:
Phalangodidae Podoctinae Roewer, 1912a: 201.
P. 225: Zmotus Sørensen, 1932 is not an available name, having been treated as a manuscript name intended to be a new generic name when Sørensen was alive, but used by the editor of his posthumous work as a synonym of Eutimesius Roewer 1913 (which has appeared in the meantime) in its only citation.
P. 226: In the same paper where Bunistygnellus is described (Roewer 1917: 122), there is the alternative original spelling Bunistygnus (only in a list on page 91). This latter spelling has been rejected in NN (1939, vol. 1: 501) as an incorrect original spelling, acting as the first reviser.
P. 227: Ilhastygnus Roewer, 1943 is unavailable, lacking an original type species designation. Pinto-da-Rocha’s (1997) action of designating a type species does not make it available, even with Pinto-da-Rocha’s authorship and date, since he treated it as a synonym (Art. 11.6.3). Designation of a type species in KC does not make available the genus with Kury, 2003 as author and date because the genus is in synonymy and he failed to fulfil the requirements of Art. 16.1.
P. 230: Fonteboatus Roewer, 1931 is unavailable, lacking an original type species designation. Pinto-da-Rocha’s (1997) action of designating a type species does not make it available, even with Pinto-da-Rocha’s authorship and date, because he treated it as a synonym and not as a valid genus (Art. 11.6.3). Designation of a type species in KC does not make available the genus with Kury, 2003 as author and date because the genus is in synonymy and he failed to fulfil the requirements of Art. 16.1.
P. 231: Stenophareus Goodnight & Goodnight, 1943: An available generic name in synonymy still competes for homonymy, so Stenophareus Roewer, 1943 (according to the data given in the Catalogue) should have priority, even if it is under synonymy of Stenostygnoides. Consequently, Goodnight & Goodnight’s name should be a junior homonym and thence invalid, and should be replaced with a nomen novum, but NN gives Goodnight & Goodnight as of June, and Roewer as of July, which reverses the priority! In fact Roewer knew that and proposed the replacement name Stenopharellus. Thence, we consider that a correction to the Remarks should be done: “senior” instead of “junior”. Also the statement “(non Stenophareus Roewer, 1943)” should be deleted.
P. 234: Stygnomma Roewer is correctly dated as of 1912 in KC contra wrongly 1914 in NN. Preprint date of Roewer (1912b) is 1912, based on Crawford (1992) and Cokendolpher (pers. comm.). Preprint should be mentioned in references as such, as it is a different publication (Art. 21.8).
P. 234: Stygnommatiplus Roewer is wrongly dated as of 1927 in KC contra correctly 1928 in NN. Nominal date of the paper is 1927. Issued February 1928.
P. 235: Stygnomma is correctly treated in KC as neuter, but Goodnight & Goodnight’s granulosa original spelling is incorrectly kept. This word being a Latin adjective, it must be in gender agreement. Consequently: S. granulos um.
P. 239: Paramitraceras Pickard-Cambridge, 1905 is neuter. Consequently, P. f e m o r a l e Goodnight & Goodnight, P. granulat um Pickard-Cambridge and P. hispidul um Pickard-Cambridge.
Remarks. Genera ending in – ceras: this is Greek for “horn” and is neuter (see examples of Art. 30.1.2 of ICZN).
P. 242: Curimagua González-Sponga: the following could also be added: “nec Hoffmann, 1982, Diplopoda”.
P. 242: Malea Sørensen, 1932 is an unavailable name and, moreover, a homonym of Malea Valenciennes, 1832 (Mollusca).
P. 245: Galanomma Juberthie, 1970 is neuter. Consequently, G. microphthalm um Juberthie. Remarks. Names ending in the Greek word – omma (eye) are neuter.
P. 245: Granulaia González-Sponga is wrongly dated as of 1997 in KC contra correctly 1998 in Zoological Record. Publication date is October 1998.
P. 246: Junquito denticuloso González-Sponga, 1999: The specific epithet cannot be corrected under the Code (Art. 31.2.3), since it is a pseudo-Latin rendering of a vernacular Spanish adjective.
P. 246: Metapachylus Pickard-Cambridge, 1905 (non Bates, 1889, Coleoptera). This name is a homonym and must be replaced. We propose here Pyropharynx Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga nom. nov. (from Greek p ŷ r, fire, and phárynx, throat) after the effects of the sauce named Tabasco, from the region where the type species was collected. Gender feminine (it should be noted that the Greek word phárynx also has a rarer masculine form). Consequently, Pyropharynx gracilis (Pickard-Cambridge, 1905), comb. nov.
P. 247: Ovalia González-Sponga, 1987 (non Latreille in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1833, Crustacea; nec Nalivkin, 1937, Brachiopoda). This name is a junior homonym and must be replaced. We replace it with Oo Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga nom. nov., name inspired in the original one, which makes reference to an egg-shaped outline (in Greek, egg is ō on), and with neuter gender. With González-Sponga’s permission (pers. comm., 2004). Consequently, Oo spinosum (González-Sponga, 1999), comb. nov.
P. 247: Neave gives Pachylicus, also present in Canestrini (1894) as an alternative original spelling for Pachylichus Canestrini, 1894 (Acari), which could have precedence over Roewer (1923). Only the spelling with –chus is the correct, so the other with –cus is an incorrect original spelling and does not affect Roewer’s name. We could find neither cited as valid in the ZR. A literature search revealed many instances of the use of Pachylichus as valid mite genus in Pyroglyphidae.
P. 247: The species named Pachylicus floresius (Goodnight & Goodnight, 1947) must be named P. petrunkevitchi (Mello-Leitão, 1942) by priority.
P. 248: Panoplia Roewer, 1949: It is “non Hübner, 1825, nec Heyden, 1826”.
P. 250: This is a misprint: In the synonymy of genus Pilosa González-Sponga, instead of Pilosa, it is said Junquito.
P. 250: Retropedis González-Sponga: This is another case with doubts about gender (masculine or feminine? It cannot be neuter). The last part, - pedis is latin for “louse” and is masculine, but it seems that he meant the also masculine substantive (considering a bad latinization) – pes “foot” or “leg” (- pedis should be its genitive, and then the name would hardly meet the requirements of Art. 11.8). It is considered here a pseudo-Latin misconstruct of masculine gender, either by using Art. 30.1.1 or Art. 30.1.4.5, since the gender is not indicated by the combination with a feminine substantive in apposition (magnapatella).
P. 251: Chersobleptes Sørensen, 1932 is unavailable, lacking an original type species designation. Authors who treated the genus later failed to give a type species, as requested by the Code. Designation of a type species in KC does not make available the genus with Kury, 2003 as author and date because he failed to fulfil the requirements of Art. 16.1 and the genus is kept in synonymy.
P. 252: Tiara González-Sponga, 1987 (non Swainson, 1831, Mollusca, nec Lesson, 1837, Coelenterata). This name is a homonym and must be replaced. It is replaced here with Mitraia Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga, nom. nov., with the same etymology. Gender feminine. Consequently, Mitraia unispina (González-Sponga, 1987) comb. nov.
P. 274: Thaumatopachylus setulosus Roewer, 1929 is wrongly cited as the not-proposed combination Neopachyloides setulosus (Roewer, 1929).
P. 285: Sibollus margaritatus Roewer, 1929 is wrongly cited as the not-proposed combination Neopachyloides margaritatus (Roewer, 1929).
description: Published as part of Kury, Adriano B. & Alonso-Zarazaga, Miguel A., 2011, Addenda and corrigenda to the " Annotated catalogue of the Laniatores of the New World (Arachnida, Opiliones) ", pp. 47-68 in Zootaxa 3034 on pages 49-62, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.207479