CaRMS Logo
Introduction | Search taxa | Taxon tree | Taxon match | Checklist | Literature | Stats | Photogallery | OBIS Vocab | Log in

CaRMS name details

Nitocra Boeck, 1865

157705  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:157705)

alternate representation (Both spellings in use)
Genus

Species Nitocra typica Boeck, 1865 accepted as Nitokra typica Boeck, 1865 represented as Nitokra typica typica Boeck, 1865 (incorrect original spelling)
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
Not documented
Nomenclature Bowman (1988) argued that, following ICZN (3rd edition) arts. 11(b)(v), 33(c) and 79(c), Nitocra is an incorrect subsequent...  
Nomenclature Bowman (1988) argued that, following ICZN (3rd edition) arts. 11(b)(v), 33(c) and 79(c), Nitocra is an incorrect subsequent spelling, and Nitokra cannot be suppresed as an unused senior synonym, and therefore, the "commonly" used spelling Nitocra should be replaced by the original spelling Nitokra. Some years later, Mielke (1993) suggested that the spelling Nitocra should prevail since "apart from rare exceptions only the name Nitocra has been used since" the description of Nitokra mihi by Boeck (1865). Mielke (1993) suggested to follow Bowman's second choice, "to supress Nitokra and validate Nitocra, in accordance with usage". Some "principal changes" introduced in the 4th edition of the ICZN appear in pages XXVI-XXIX. Change number 12 says "In most cases an author will be required to maintain the particular spelling in prevailing use for a name, even if it is found not to be the original spelling;..."). Also, art 33.3. and 33.3.1. say: "Any subsequent spelling of a name different from the correct original spelling, other than a mandatory change or an emendation, is an "incorrect subsequent spelling"; it is not an available name and, like an incorrect original spelling [Art. 32.4], it does not enter into homonymy and cannot be used as a substitute name, but when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling." The same reasoning was used by Wells (2007:88) who says "Bowman (1988) recognised that the name of this common and speciose genus has been misspelt—as Nitocra— since 1881 and argued that the original spelling (Nitokra) should be resumed. Mielke (1993) disagreed, believing the name that had been in common use for so long should prevail. At that time Mielke’s view would have required a ruling from the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature but to the best of my knowledge a case was not submitted. However, the situation is now resolved—in favour of Nitocra—by the adoption in Article 33 of the 4th Edition of the ICZN, 1999, of a new section 33.3.1. which allows “an incorrect subsequent spelling” to stand when it is in “prevailing usage” and has always been properly attributed to the original author."

Gómez, Carrasco & Morales-Serna, 2012 followed Mielke (1993), Wells (2007) but above all, the ICZN (1999) arts. 33.3 and 33.3.1. In the opinion of Samuel Gomez, the spelling Nitokra should be replaced by Nitocra.
 [details]
Walter, T.C. & Boxshall, G. (2018). World of Copepods database. Nitocra Boeck, 1865. Accessed through: Kennedy, M.K., L. Van Guelpen, G. Pohle, L. Bajona (Eds.) (2018) Canadian Register of Marine Species at: http://www.marinespecies.org/Carms/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=157705 on 2019-08-19
Kennedy, M.K., L. Van Guelpen, G. Pohle, L. Bajona (Eds.) (2019). Canadian Register of Marine Species. Nitocra Boeck, 1865. Accessed at: http://marinespecies.org/carms./aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=157705 on 2019-08-19
Date
action
by
2005-05-24 07:32:08Z
created
2007-03-19 12:59:56Z
changed
2010-07-28 20:41:46Z
checked

basis of record Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). , available online at http://www.itis.gov [details]   

additional source Gómez, S., N.K. Carrasco & F.N. Morales-Serna. (2012). A new species of Nitocra Boeck, 1865 (Harpacticoida, Ameiridae, Ameirinae) from South Africa, with notes on its ecology and remarks on the statusof Nitocra sewelli husmanni Kunz, 1976. <em>Zookeys.</em> 244:33-58., available online at https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.244.2633 [details]  Available for editors  PDF available 
 
 Present  Inaccurate  Introduced: alien  Containing type locality 
From editor or global species database
Nomenclature Bowman (1988) argued that, following ICZN (3rd edition) arts. 11(b)(v), 33(c) and 79(c), Nitocra is an incorrect subsequent spelling, and Nitokra cannot be suppresed as an unused senior synonym, and therefore, the "commonly" used spelling Nitocra should be replaced by the original spelling Nitokra. Some years later, Mielke (1993) suggested that the spelling Nitocra should prevail since "apart from rare exceptions only the name Nitocra has been used since" the description of Nitokra mihi by Boeck (1865). Mielke (1993) suggested to follow Bowman's second choice, "to supress Nitokra and validate Nitocra, in accordance with usage". Some "principal changes" introduced in the 4th edition of the ICZN appear in pages XXVI-XXIX. Change number 12 says "In most cases an author will be required to maintain the particular spelling in prevailing use for a name, even if it is found not to be the original spelling;..."). Also, art 33.3. and 33.3.1. say: "Any subsequent spelling of a name different from the correct original spelling, other than a mandatory change or an emendation, is an "incorrect subsequent spelling"; it is not an available name and, like an incorrect original spelling [Art. 32.4], it does not enter into homonymy and cannot be used as a substitute name, but when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling." The same reasoning was used by Wells (2007:88) who says "Bowman (1988) recognised that the name of this common and speciose genus has been misspelt—as Nitocra— since 1881 and argued that the original spelling (Nitokra) should be resumed. Mielke (1993) disagreed, believing the name that had been in common use for so long should prevail. At that time Mielke’s view would have required a ruling from the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature but to the best of my knowledge a case was not submitted. However, the situation is now resolved—in favour of Nitocra—by the adoption in Article 33 of the 4th Edition of the ICZN, 1999, of a new section 33.3.1. which allows “an incorrect subsequent spelling” to stand when it is in “prevailing usage” and has always been properly attributed to the original author."

Gómez, Carrasco & Morales-Serna, 2012 followed Mielke (1993), Wells (2007) but above all, the ICZN (1999) arts. 33.3 and 33.3.1. In the opinion of Samuel Gomez, the spelling Nitokra should be replaced by Nitocra.
 [details]
Website and databases developed and hosted by VLIZ · Page generated 2019-08-19 GMT · contact: