Halimus aries (Majidae)

Low, Martyn E. Y., Ng, Peter K. L. & Evenhuis, Neal L., 2013, Names and publication dates of the Brachyura in F. É. Guérin (Guérin-Méneville) (Crustacea: Decapoda), Zootaxa 3736 (2), pp. 101-127 : 104-105

Authorship of Halimus aries (Majidae) and Libinia spinosa (Epialtidae)

Henri Milne Edwards published in 1834 the diagnoses of two majoid species, Halimus aries (H. Milne Edwards 1834: 341) and Libinia spinosa (H. Milne Edwards 1834: 301) , the authorship of which have traditionally been attributed to him. In the footnotes on each page, however, H. Milne Edwards listed references to figures of each species in “Guérin. Iconog. Cr.” (H. Milne Edwards 1834: 301, 341). These references correspond exactly with the figures and captions in Guérin’s Iconographie in 1832 (Guérin-Méneville 1829–1837): “ Halimus aries . Latr.” (pl. 9, fig. 2, caption to figure) and “ Libinia spinosa . M. Edw.” (pl. 9, fig. 3, caption to figure). The captions on the plates of Guérin (1832, in Guérin-Méneville 1829–1837) constitute available species indications (Article 12.2.7 of the Code, ICZN 1999: 17).

Although Guérin (1832 in Guérin-Méneville 1829–1837: pl. 9, figs. 2, 3, captions to figures) appears to attribute authorship of the two names to Latreille and H. Milne Edwards, respectively, there is no evidence in the work (the Iconographie, Guérin-Méneville 1829–1837) to suggest that Latreille or H. Milne Edwards were responsible for the names and we follow the arguments made by Ng (1994: 510) and Low & Ng (2012: 47) that the mere citation of a person’s name after a new Latin name is not sufficient evidence that a person other than the author the work in which the name was made available is responsible for the name (and for making it available) (also see Article 50.1.1, ICZN 1999: 52). For a differing opinion on the authorship of Libinia spinosa , see Tavares & Santana (2012: 580).

The correct date of publication and authorship of both majoid names should therefore be Halimus aries Guérin, 1832 , and Libinia spinosa Guérin, 1832 .

Ucea Guérin-Méneville, 1844, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Uca Latreille, 1819 (now Ucides Rathbun, 1897 ) ( Ucididae )

Guérin (1832, in Guérin-Méneville 1829–1837: pl. 5, fig. 3) depicted what is now known as Ucides cordatus (Linnaeus, 1763) and in the caption to the figure he used “ Uca una Latr. ”. Holthuis (1991: 72, 73) and Ng et al. (2008: 244) discussed the nomenclatural issues connected with the name Ucides cordatus (Linnaeus, 1763) . The name Uca was first proposed by Leach (1814: 430) for a grouping of fiddler crabs. The genus-group name Uca was also proposed by Latreille (1819: 96) for “Uka una ”, a pre-Linnaean name for Cancer cordatus Linnaeus, 1763 . Uca Leach, 1814 , and Uca Latreille, 1819 , are thus homonyms.

Latreille (1817: 517) attempted to “improve” the name Uca Leach, 1814 , by replacing it with Gelasimus . Latreille (1819: 96) also used “ Uca ” for another species, Cancer cordatus Linnaeus, 1763 , which confused matters because it was a very different crab (see Rathbun 1897a: 154). This issue was resolved when Rathbun (1897a: 154) proposed the replacement name Ucides for Uca Latreille, 1819 . Also aware of this homonymy, Ortmann (1897: 334) proposed the name Oedipleura . As discussed by Holthuis (1991: 72, 73), the genus-group name Ucides Rathbun, 1897 (published on 9 June) has priority over Oedipleura Ortmann, 1897 (published on 20 July).

The name Uca una as used on the plate by Guérin (1832, in Guérin-Méneville 1829–1837: pl. 5, fig. 3, caption to figure) does not present any problems. In the text of the Iconographie (Guérin-Méneville 1844: 8), however, the genus-group name Ucea was used in the text relating to Uca una : “ Uca Latr. […] U. una . Ucea una . Marcgr. Latr.”. As the genus-group name was correctly spelt on the plate caption (Guérin 1832, in Guérin-Méneville 1829– 1837: pl. 5, fig. 3, caption to figure), and Guérin-Méneville (1844: 8) did not mention any possible homonymy between Uca Latreille, 1819 , and Uca Leach, 1814 , the spelling of the name “ Ucea ” is here considered a lapsus rather than an intentional emendation (Article 33.2.1 of the Code, ICZN 1999: 42). This is supported by the use of the genus-group name Gelasimus Latreille, 1817 (rather than Uca Leach, 1814 ) for a species of fiddler crab by Guérin (1832, in Guérin-Méneville 1829–1837: pl. 4, fig. 3, caption to figure), which would mean that Guérin accepted the name Uca Latreille, 1819 for Cancer cordatus Linnaeus, 1763 , and Gelasimus Latreille, 1817 (the “replacement” name for Uca Leach, 1814 ).

The name Ucea in Guérin-Méneville (1844: 8), must thus be treated as an incorrect subsequent spelling of Uca Latreille, 1819 , and not a replacement name for the latter. The correct genus-group name for Cancer cordatus Linnaeus, 1763 , remains as Ucides Rathbun, 1897 .