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

CaRMS taxon details

Nitokra Boeck, 1865

115198  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:115198)

accepted
Genus
Nitokra typica typica Boeck, 1865 (type by original designation)
Nitocra Boeck, 1865· accepted, alternate representation (Both spellings in use)
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. Nitokra 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=115198 on 2018-10-19
Kennedy, M.K., L. Van Guelpen, G. Pohle, L. Bajona (Eds.) (2018). Canadian Register of Marine Species. Nitokra Boeck, 1865. Accessed at: http://www.marinespecies.org/carms/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=115198 on 2018-10-19
Date
action
by
2004-12-21 15:54:05Z
created
2006-09-26 06:56:50Z
changed
Martinez, Olga
2010-07-28 20:41:46Z
checked
2015-09-03 06:24:32Z
changed
2018-07-20 13:20:38Z
changed

basis of record Huys, R. (2001). Copepoda - Harpacticoida. <em>In: Costello, M.J. et al. (eds.) European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels.</em> 50:268-280. (look up in IMIS[details]  Available for editors  PDF available 

additional source Gómez, S., N.K. Carrasco & F.N. Morales-Serna, 2012. (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. [details]  Available for editors  PDF available 

additional source Bodin, P. (1997). Catalogue of the new marine harpacticoid copepods. <em>Studiedocumenten van het K.B.I.N. = Documents de Travail de l'I.R.Sc.N.B., 89. Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen: Brussels, Belgium.</em> 304 pp. (look up in IMIS)
page(s): 274 [details]   

additional source Boeck, A. (1865). Oversigt over de ved Norges Kyster jagttagne Copepoder henhorende til Calanidernes, Cyclopidernes og Harpactidernes Familier. <em>Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania.</em> 1864: 226-282.
page(s): 274 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

additional source Nomenclator Zoologicus Online. , available online at http://uio.mbl.edu/NomenclatorZoologicus/ [details]   
 
 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 2018-10-19 GMT · contact: