Smith, S.I. (1884). Report on the decapod Crustacea of the Albatross dredgings off the east coast of the United States in 1883. In: Report of the Commissioner for 1882. Part X. United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington D.C., pp. 345-426, pls. 1-10. [details]
Nomenclature A. eximia or A. eximea?
Two articles in the Code are of importance here:
24.2.3. Selection of correct original...
Nomenclature A. eximia or A. eximea?
Two articles in the Code are of importance here:
24.2.3. Selection of correct original spellings. If a name is spelled in more than one way in the original work, the first author to have cited them together and to have selected one spelling as correct is the First Revisor. The selected spelling (if not incorrect under Articles 32.4 or 32.5) is thereby fixed as the correct original spelling; any other spelling is incorrect (and therefore unavailable [Art. 32.4]).
24.2.4. Original authors may be deemed to be First Revisers of spellings. When the author, or one of joint authors, of two different original spellings of the same name subsequently uses one of them as valid is a work (including the author’s or publisher’s corrigenda), and neither had previously been selected as the correct spelling by a First Reviser, the author is deemed to be the First Reviser, whether or not the author cites both spellings together (that used as valid becomes the correct original spelling).
Both names were used by Smith (1884). Smith himself used A. eximia in his publication of 1886 (pp. 189, 190, 192). In between no other author has used both names in an article and selected the correct spelling, thus here article 24.2.4 holds and Smith himself becomes the First Reviser. In 1887 (pp. 610, 611, 613, 667, pl. 14 fig. 1) Smith uses A. eximea again, but this should, according to the Code, be regarded an incorrect spelling. [details]
original descriptionSmith, S.I. (1884). Report on the decapod Crustacea of the Albatross dredgings off the east coast of the United States in 1883. In: Report of the Commissioner for 1882. Part X. United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington D.C., pp. 345-426, pls. 1-10. [details]
original description(ofAcanthephyra frontieri Crosnier, 1988)Crosnier, A. (1988). Oplophoridae (Crustacea Decapoda) récoltés de 1971 à 1982 par les navires françaises dans l'océan Indien occidental sud. <em>Bulletin du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (4) section A, Zoologie, Biologie et Écologie animales.</em> 9: 695-726.[details] Available for editors
original description(ofAcanthephyra pulchra A. Milne-Edwards, 1890)Milne-Edwards, A. (1890). Diagnose d'un crustacé macroure nouveau de la Méditerranée. <em>Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France.</em> 15: 163.[details]
context source (Deepsea)Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO. The Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS), available online athttp://www.iobis.org/[details]
context source (Bermuda)Markham, J. C.; McDermott, J. J. (1980). A tabulation of the Crustacea Decapoda of Bermuda. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 93(4): 1266-1276[details]
basis of recordDe Grave, S.; Fransen, C.H.J.M. (2011). Carideorum catalogus: the recent species of the dendrobranchiate, stenopodidean, procarididean and caridean shrimps (Crustacea: Decapoda). <em>Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden.</em> 85(9): 195-589. (look up in IMIS) [details]
additional sourceMuñoz, Isabel; García-Isarch, Eva; Sobrino, Ignacio; Burgos, Candelaria; Funny, Rita; González-Porto, Marcos. (2012). Distribution, abundance and assemblages of decapod crustaceans in waters off Guinea-Bissau (north-west Africa). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, vol. 92 issue 3, p. 475-494., available online athttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315411001895[details]
additional sourceWebber, W.R., G.D. Fenwick, J.M. Bradford-Grieve, S.G. Eagar, J.S. Buckeridge, G.C.B. Poore, E.W. Dawson, L. Watling, J.B. Jones, J.B.J. Wells, N.L. Bruce, S.T. Ahyong, K. Larsen, M.A. Chapman, J. Olesen, J.S. Ho, J.D. Green, R.J. Shiel, C.E.F. Rocha, A. Lörz, G.J. Bird & W.A. Charleston. (2010). Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Crustacea: shrimps, crabs, lobsters, barnacles, slaters, and kin. <em>in: Gordon, D.P. (Ed.) (2010). New Zealand inventory of biodiversity: 2. Kingdom Animalia: Chaetognatha, Ecdysozoa, Ichnofossils.</em> pp. 98-232 (COPEPODS 21 pp.).[details] Available for editors
additional sourceLiu, J.Y. [Ruiyu] (ed.). (2008). Checklist of marine biota of China seas. <em>China Science Press.</em> 1267 pp. (look up in IMIS) [details] Available for editors
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From editor or global species database
Nomenclature A. eximia or A. eximea?
Two articles in the Code are of importance here:
24.2.3. Selection of correct original spellings. If a name is spelled in more than one way in the original work, the first author to have cited them together and to have selected one spelling as correct is the First Revisor. The selected spelling (if not incorrect under Articles 32.4 or 32.5) is thereby fixed as the correct original spelling; any other spelling is incorrect (and therefore unavailable [Art. 32.4]).
24.2.4. Original authors may be deemed to be First Revisers of spellings. When the author, or one of joint authors, of two different original spellings of the same name subsequently uses one of them as valid is a work (including the author’s or publisher’s corrigenda), and neither had previously been selected as the correct spelling by a First Reviser, the author is deemed to be the First Reviser, whether or not the author cites both spellings together (that used as valid becomes the correct original spelling).
Both names were used by Smith (1884). Smith himself used A. eximia in his publication of 1886 (pp. 189, 190, 192). In between no other author has used both names in an article and selected the correct spelling, thus here article 24.2.4 holds and Smith himself becomes the First Reviser. In 1887 (pp. 610, 611, 613, 667, pl. 14 fig. 1) Smith uses A. eximea again, but this should, according to the Code, be regarded an incorrect spelling. [details]