Nomenclatural Status of the Fish Names Created by JC Van Hasselt
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Japanese Journal of Ichthyology 魚 類 学 雑 誌 Vol.33, No.4 1987 33巻4号1987年 Nomenclatural Status of the Fish Names Created by J.C. van Hasselt (1823) and of Some Cobitoid Genera MauriceKottelat (ReceivedJune 7, 1986) Abstract The nomenclatural status of the 16 genera and 42 species of fishes described by van Hasselt is reviewed. One genus is preoccupied and 4 genera and 26 species are nomina nuda . The status of some cobitoid generic names is reviewed with greater details: Noemacheilus van Hasselt is a nomen nudum; Acantophthalmus van Hasselt is a junior synonym of Cobitis Linnaeus and Acanthophthalmus Bleeker is an incorrect spelling; the fishes usually called Acanthophthalmus are Pangio Blyth; Acanthopsis Bleeker is an incorrect spelling of Acantopsis van Hasselt; Acanthopsis Agassiz is valid and its type species is A. angustus Agassiz . Heinrich Kuhl (1796-1821) and Jan Coenrad and status are indicated, as well as type species of van Hasselt (1797-1823) arrived in Java in Decem- new genera. Readers are referred to Alfred (1961) ber 1820 and stayed until their respective deaths . for a more thorough history of these letters and They were charged with investigating the natural for the English translation, and to Steenis-Kru- history of the Dutch East Indies. These investi- seman (1950) for biographical data and references gations were the subject of various letters sent to on Kuhl and van Hasselt. In this paper, ICZN C. J. Temminck, then director of the Leiden Mu- refers to the International Code of Zoological seum. The letters devoted to fishes (among other Nomenclature, 1985 edition. letters) were published by Temminck (van Has- selt, 1823a-c). Kuhl and van Hasselt were unable Drawings and specimens to prepare a definitive report of their researches. Several new names were cited in these letters; Throughout the text, van Hasselt referred to the some of these names are valid, while others are drawings which have been prepared in Java and nomina nuda. Parts of the letters were translated which were sent with the letters. These drawings into French (van Hasselt, 1824a, b), although in were later examined by Valenciennes who apparent- shortened form. Most of the names have been ly took them to Paris [Bleeker (1863a: 48) examined variously treated by subsequent authors (i.e. at least one (in Paris ?)]. They were said to have Cuvier and Valenciennes, Bleeker, Weber and de been sent back to Leiden although there is ap- Beaufort, etc.). Alfred (1961) published an parently no proof of this. Except for two men- English translation of these letters and gave, as tioned by Alfred (1964) they cannot be found in footnotes, comments on some taxa. However, Leiden and are supposedly lost. Alfred did not attempt to make a complete synop- Copies (or originals ?) of some drawings were sis on the nomenclatural status of all names con- found to exist in Cuvier and Valenciennes' notes tained in van Hasselt's letters. Therefore , given for the Histoire Naturelle des Poissons in the the history of these names, the very brief 'descrip- Bibliotheque Centrale du Museum National tions', and the uncertainty surrounding their validi- d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris. A complete list of ty, a complete discussion is in order. these drawings has still to be established. These The aim of this paper is to thoroughly and con- drawings are unpublished, therefore, mention to clusively solve as many of these problems as pos- them in van Hasselt's letters or in the Histoire sible. The various names are listed here in the Naturelle des Poissons is not an indication [ICZN order of appearance in van Hasselt's letters. Valid art. 12(b) (7)]. names of former authors are omitted. Authorship Specimens collected by Kuhl and van Hasselt ― 368 ― Kottelat: Nomenclatural Status of Cobitoid Genera exist in Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, 2. Scyllia griseum van Hasselt, 1823a (nomen Leiden (RMNH). Some were given to Valencien- nudum). nes and remain in the collections of Museum 3. Carcharias javanicus van Hasselt, 1823a National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN). When I could trace them, I list potential type (nomen nudum). Van Hasselt wrote that this fish differed from a 'Meni Sauru' he saw in the Paris specimens; but I have not systematically looked Museum by the shape of the caudal fin. He did for them. not indicate how this fin was different. This cannot be accepted as a description. Authorship 4. Zygaena indica van Hasselt, 1823a. Availa- For most names, the authors were clearly in- ble by indication to Russel (1803, vol.1: 8, pl. 12), dicated (mihi, nob.). In the first letter, van Hasselt (1823a: 315) indicated that work on marine whose plate was reproduced in Alfred (1961: pl. 3, fig. 1). fishes had been done after Kuhl's death. 5. Zygaena laytcephala van Hasselt, 1823a Nomina nuda and nomina dubia (nomen nudum). Laytcephala probably is a mis- print for latycephala. Many of Kuhl and van Hasselt names are 6. Myliobatus cyclura van Hasselt, 1823a nomina nuda. There are several reasons, often combined, for this: no description at all; a com- (nomen nudum). 7. Myliobatus ocellatus Kuhl in van Hasselt, mon description for several species or the only 1823a. Available by indication to Russel (1803, mentioned characters are described as shared with vol.1: 5, pl. 8). another species; description not explicit, but im- plied by the name. 8. Gymnura Kuhl in van Hasselt, 1823a (type I have been argued that most of those Kuhl and species:.Raja micrura Bloch in Schneider, 1801, by van Hasselt names which are not nomina nuda monotypy). Available by indication [the use of are nomina dubia and thus cannot be used. This one available species-group name; ICZN art. is only partly true: nomina nuda cannot be used 12 (c) (5)]. because they are not available while nomina 9. Cephaloptera tatraniana. This is an incor- dubia are available but we cannot use them as we rect subsequent spelling of Raja fabroniana La- are unable to recognize them; but when the type cepede, 1800. It has no status in nomenclature material is redescribed or when a neotype is des- [ICZN art. 33 (c)]. ignated they can be recognized and used with their original author. This is just the general process 10. Rhenoptera van Hasselt, 1823a (nomen of revision and it may very well apply to our own nudum). works in the future. 11. Aluthera javanica van Hasselt, 1823a Most of the nomina dubia disappeared with (nomen nudum). the revisory works of Valenciennes and Bleeker. For the very few which remain, if, when identified, 12. Monacanthus sarothura van Hasselt, 1823a. Available by indication to Seba (1758: 63, pl. 24, they turn out to upset stability of nomenclature, then the case should be submitted to the Inter- fig. 18) and Gronovius (1763: 52, no.191, pl. 6, fig. 5). national Commission of Zoological Nomenclature which might suppress it. This may possibly 13. Monacanthus inornatus van Hasselt, 1823a apply to Odontopsis armata once it is identified. (nomen nudum). 14. Syngnathus fluviatilis van Hasselt, 1823b Systematic section (nomen nudum). The drawing mentioned by van Hasselt has been traced by Alfred (1964). 1. Scyllia quinquecornuatum van Hasselt, 1823a. Available by indication to Seba (1758: pl. 34, fig. 15. Saurus carinatus van Hasselt, 1823b. Avail- able by description. Also by indication to Russel 1) [ICZN art. 12 (b) (7)]. Compagno (1984) er- roneously listed this name as Scyllium quinquecari- (1803, vol.2: 56, pl. 172). natum van Hasselt, 1823. 16. Clupea macrura van Hasselt, 1823b (nomen ― 369 ― 魚類学雑誌 Japan. J. Ichthyol. 33 (4), 1987 nudum). Although van Hasselt capitalized Ma- 33. Barbus tambra Kuhl et van Hasselt in van crura, he clearly used it as a species name, thus the Hasselt, 1823c (nomen nudum). use of Macrura van Hasselt by several authors 34. Barbus striatus van Hasselt, 1823c (nomen (e.g. Misra, 1976) is not correct. nudum). 35. Barbus lateristriatus Kuhl et van Hasselt 17. Gonostoma van Hasselt, 1823b (no type in van Hasselt, 1823c (nomen nudum). species designation). Preoccupied in Pisces by Rafinesque-Schmaltz (1810: 64). 36. Hampala Kuhl et van Hasselt in van Has- selt, 1823c (type species: H. macrolepidota Kuhl 18. Engraulis indicus van Hasselt, 1823b. et van Hasselt, 1823, by monotypy). Available by description. Also by indication to 37. Hampala macrolepidota Kuhl et van Has- Russel (1803, vol.2: 71, pl. 187). selt in van Hasselt, 1823c. 19. Lutodeira van Hasselt, 1823b (type species: Both names available by description. A potential Lutodeira indica van Hasselt, 1823, by monotypy). type is still extant (RMNH 2518). 20. Lutodeira indica van Hasselt, 1823b. 38. Labiobarbus van Hasselt, 1823c (type spe- Both names available by description. Also by cies: Dangila leptocheila Valenciennes, 1842, by indication to Russel (1803, vol.2: 84, pl. 207). subsequent designation by Smith, 1945: 221). Arnoult (1984: 128) erroneously considered Rtip- 39. Labiobarbus leptocheilus van Hasselt, 1823c pell (1828: 17) as author. One specimen (RMNH (nomen nudum). 3369) labelled Channos channos might be a potenti- 40. Labiobarbus lipocheilus van Hasselt, 1823c al type. (nomen nudum). 21. Belone strongylura van Hasselt, 1823c. Labiobarbus is available by description, but no Available by indication to Russel (1803, vol.2: species is included as both L. leptocheilus and L. 61, pl. 176). lipocheilus of van Hasselt are nomina nuda be- cause they were distinguished only on characters 22. Hemirhamphus viridis van Hasselt, 1823c implied by their names. The next use of the (nomen nudum). generic name Labiobarbus is by Smith (1945) who 23. Dermogenys Kuhl et van Hasselt in van included seven nominal species and one synonym. Hasselt, 1823c (type species: D. pusillus Kuhl et Smith considered L. leptocheilus as type species van Hasselt, 1823, by monotypy).