Acanthaster ellisii ( Gray, 1840 )

Haszprunar, Gerhard & Spies, Martin, 2014, An integrative approach to the taxonomy of the crown-of-thorns starfish species group (Asteroidea: Acanthaster): A review of names and comparison to recent molecular data, Zootaxa 3841 (2), pp. 271-284 : 275

(5) Acanthaster ellisii ( Gray, 1840) [often misspelled ellisi]

Original combination. Echinaster ellisii

Original source. Gray (1840): p. 281.

http://archive.org/stream/annalsmagazineof06londuoft#page/281/mode/2up

Nomenclatural status. Available name; see remark (2) below.

Type material. Unknown number of specimens from the collection of "H. Cuming, Esq." ( Gray 1840: 281); see remark (3) below .

Type locality. “ South America ” ( Gray 1840: 281); further details unknown.

Remarks. (1) Gray's (1840: 281) proposal of the new name reads " Echinaster Ellisii, Gray. Asterias Echinus, Solander and Ellis , t. 60, 61, 62. Asterias Echinites, Lam. ". Apparently Gray thought that the South American material from the Cuming collection belonged to the same taxonomic species as the Indonesian specimen described and named by Ellis and Solander in Watt (1786), and cited by Lamarck (1816). Nevertheless Gray proposed a new name, Echinaster ellisii , and used it as valid in place of Asterias echinites Ellis & Solander. This substitution was treated as unjustified by Gervais (1841), who used Acanthaster echinites (Ellis & Solander) as the valid name, with Echinaster ellisii as a junior synonym.

(2) According to the Code of nomenclature in effect today, the "unnecessary substitute name" Echinaster ellisii was invalid originally (ICZN 1999: Art. 10.6), but has been available from Gray (1840) nonetheless (ICZN 1999: Art. 12). It is not unavailable under Code Art. 11.6, as Gray published it in senior rather than junior synonymy with Asterias echinites Ellis & Solander. Consequently , the available name Acanthaster ellisii (Gray) may be used as a valid name—at species or subspecies rank—by anyone not considering it as a junior synonym of any other available name.

(3) Gray (1840: 178) wrote that "specimens discovered by Mr. Cuming" were "in the collection ... of the Zoological Society" of London. According to information on wikipedia.org, "In 1866 after Cuming's death, the Natural History Museum of London purchased 82,992 of his specimens" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hugh_Cuming, visited 21 February 2014). However, Madsen (1955: 188) reported that two earlier attempts to locate Gray's material of Echinaster ellisii had failed and thus concluded that "it has been lost". Caso (1962) did not refer to original type material of Acanthaster ellisii when she described a subspecies, A. ellisii pseudoplanci (see species section (7) below). In summary, barring any rediscovery at the NHM or in other collections, the original type material of Echinaster ellisii Gray, 1840 appears to be lost.

(4) Madsen (1955) referred to several earlier works in considering Acanthaster ellisii (Gray) as a valid species, and gave morphological characters as well as a differential diagnosis.