316
posite of several entities with no clearly differentiating
biological characteristics, a 'specie colletti va' . Artom
(1921) provides additional evidence of his inconsistent
use of names in scientific format. In this paper, he refers
to the parthenogenetic Artemia from Capodistria, Italy
variously as Capodistria tetrapolidae partenogenetic,
'Artemia bivalens di Capodistria' , and 'Artemia salina
bivalens di Capodisytria'.
Artom (1906) poses a potential nomenclatural
problem that generated considerable correspondence
between us. In the 1906 paper, Artom points to the
existence of what he calls two varieties of Artemia,
one sexual and one parthenogenetic. He refers to the
sexual variety as 'Artemia di Cagliari' (page 5) and later as 'Artemia salina di Cagliari' (page 8)). He refers
to the parthenogenetic variety as 'Artemia partenogenetic a di Capodistria' without ever differentiating
the typeface from the other type used in the sentence.
He thus seems to be using 'Artemia partenogenetica'
as a name of convenience with no intent of making
the name available as this concept is currently defined
in the Code. Supporting this interpretation is the fact
Artom never directly referred to 'Artemia partenogenetica' as a new species. He consistently referred
to the parthenogentic form as a variety. Thus, we conclude that even though Artom (1906) began use of
the name which Barigozzi (1974) styled as the nomen
nudum (the Code p. 260) 'Artemia parthenogenetica',
it was Bowen and Sterling (1978) that ultimately, and in
a somewhat oblique way when compared with the typical new species publication, made the name Artemia
parthenogenetica available (the Code Chapter IV).
Unfortunately, Barigozzi (1980) advocated a return
to the ways of Artom by suggesting vernacular names
(the Code p. 259) be written in scientific style. What is
most damaging, Barigozzi did this in a paper treating
problems of systematics in the genus Artemia which is
included in a major international symposium volume
devoted to Artemia biology. His suggestion can only
lead to nomenclatural problems and confusion; it must
be avoided. We appeal to all anostracan workers to
carefully follow the rules for naming taxa agreed to by
our profession in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Vernacular or common names are
useful in many situations and they present no problem
so long as they are not written to look like scientific
names (the Code p. 259). That is, so long as they are not
Latin or latinized binomina or trinomina. In fact, we
urge the use of obviously vernacular names (for example, White-pool brine shrimp) or designations such as
Artemia sp. 1 anytime the taxonomic status of a taxon
is unclear. This will avoid the creation of extensive
synonymies.
Nomina dubia
A number of nominal species in the genus Artemia
must be considered nomina dubia (the Code p. 260)
given our current understanding of the genus as a complex of sibling species (Browne & Bowen, 1990) and
the lack of detailed evaluation of the populations and
specimens upon which these binomina were suggested.
The nomina dubia which were listed by Daday (1910)
as synonyms of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758) are:
A. arietina Fischer, 1851; A. asiatica Walter, 1887;
A. australis Sayce, 1903; A. eulimene Leach, 1819;
A. koppeniana Fischer, 1851; A. milhausenii (Fischer,
1834); A. oUdneyi (Lievin, 1856); A. proxima (King,
1855); and A. westraliensis Sayce, 1903. Two nomina
dubia treated by Daday (1910) as synonymous members of a separate species of Artemia are: A. dybowskii
(Grochowski, 1896) and A. jelskii Grube, 1874. One
nomen dubium published before 1910, but not listed in
Daday (1910) is Artemia cagliaritana Samter & Heymons, 1902. One published since Daday's monograph,
A. odessensis Barigozzi, 1980, is also a nomen nudum
and is thus not an available name since it failed to
conform to Article 13 of the Code.
The nomina dubia in other genera are: Branchinella
northamensis Dakin, 1914 (only one female known);
Branchinella tenuis (Henry, 1924 ) (described in
Branchinecta, only one incomplete male and three
females known); Streptocephalus archeri Sars, 1896
(The tetrahedral eggs reported by Sars for the single
laboratory cultured female on which this species is
described could be the result of his culture from soil
collected in Australia being contaminated with an egg
or larva of an African species belonging to the subgenus Parastreptocephalus Brendonck, Hamer, and
Thiery, 1992. Sars worked with pool-soils from both
Africa and Australia. However, the females reported by
Linder (1941:234) at the British Museum and collected from the same Rockhampton area in Queensland,
Australia that Sars' mud sample came from suggest
this is a problem in need of careful study because of its
important implications for anostracan zoogeography.);
and Streptocephalus chappuisi Brehm, 1935 (based on
unidentifiable immature specimens).
posite of several entities with no clearly differentiating
biological characteristics, a 'specie colletti va' . Artom
(1921) provides additional evidence of his inconsistent
use of names in scientific format. In this paper, he refers
to the parthenogenetic Artemia from Capodistria, Italy
variously as Capodistria tetrapolidae partenogenetic,
'Artemia bivalens di Capodistria' , and 'Artemia salina
bivalens di Capodisytria'.
Artom (1906) poses a potential nomenclatural
problem that generated considerable correspondence
between us. In the 1906 paper, Artom points to the
existence of what he calls two varieties of Artemia,
one sexual and one parthenogenetic. He refers to the
sexual variety as 'Artemia di Cagliari' (page 5) and later as 'Artemia salina di Cagliari' (page 8)). He refers
to the parthenogenetic variety as 'Artemia partenogenetic a di Capodistria' without ever differentiating
the typeface from the other type used in the sentence.
He thus seems to be using 'Artemia partenogenetica'
as a name of convenience with no intent of making
the name available as this concept is currently defined
in the Code. Supporting this interpretation is the fact
Artom never directly referred to 'Artemia partenogenetica' as a new species. He consistently referred
to the parthenogentic form as a variety. Thus, we conclude that even though Artom (1906) began use of
the name which Barigozzi (1974) styled as the nomen
nudum (the Code p. 260) 'Artemia parthenogenetica',
it was Bowen and Sterling (1978) that ultimately, and in
a somewhat oblique way when compared with the typical new species publication, made the name Artemia
parthenogenetica available (the Code Chapter IV).
Unfortunately, Barigozzi (1980) advocated a return
to the ways of Artom by suggesting vernacular names
(the Code p. 259) be written in scientific style. What is
most damaging, Barigozzi did this in a paper treating
problems of systematics in the genus Artemia which is
included in a major international symposium volume
devoted to Artemia biology. His suggestion can only
lead to nomenclatural problems and confusion; it must
be avoided. We appeal to all anostracan workers to
carefully follow the rules for naming taxa agreed to by
our profession in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Vernacular or common names are
useful in many situations and they present no problem
so long as they are not written to look like scientific
names (the Code p. 259). That is, so long as they are not
Latin or latinized binomina or trinomina. In fact, we
urge the use of obviously vernacular names (for example, White-pool brine shrimp) or designations such as
Artemia sp. 1 anytime the taxonomic status of a taxon
is unclear. This will avoid the creation of extensive
synonymies.
Nomina dubia
A number of nominal species in the genus Artemia
must be considered nomina dubia (the Code p. 260)
given our current understanding of the genus as a complex of sibling species (Browne & Bowen, 1990) and
the lack of detailed evaluation of the populations and
specimens upon which these binomina were suggested.
The nomina dubia which were listed by Daday (1910)
as synonyms of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758) are:
A. arietina Fischer, 1851; A. asiatica Walter, 1887;
A. australis Sayce, 1903; A. eulimene Leach, 1819;
A. koppeniana Fischer, 1851; A. milhausenii (Fischer,
1834); A. oUdneyi (Lievin, 1856); A. proxima (King,
1855); and A. westraliensis Sayce, 1903. Two nomina
dubia treated by Daday (1910) as synonymous members of a separate species of Artemia are: A. dybowskii
(Grochowski, 1896) and A. jelskii Grube, 1874. One
nomen dubium published before 1910, but not listed in
Daday (1910) is Artemia cagliaritana Samter & Heymons, 1902. One published since Daday's monograph,
A. odessensis Barigozzi, 1980, is also a nomen nudum
and is thus not an available name since it failed to
conform to Article 13 of the Code.
The nomina dubia in other genera are: Branchinella
northamensis Dakin, 1914 (only one female known);
Branchinella tenuis (Henry, 1924 ) (described in
Branchinecta, only one incomplete male and three
females known); Streptocephalus archeri Sars, 1896
(The tetrahedral eggs reported by Sars for the single
laboratory cultured female on which this species is
described could be the result of his culture from soil
collected in Australia being contaminated with an egg
or larva of an African species belonging to the subgenus Parastreptocephalus Brendonck, Hamer, and
Thiery, 1992. Sars worked with pool-soils from both
Africa and Australia. However, the females reported by
Linder (1941:234) at the British Museum and collected from the same Rockhampton area in Queensland,
Australia that Sars' mud sample came from suggest
this is a problem in need of careful study because of its
important implications for anostracan zoogeography.);
and Streptocephalus chappuisi Brehm, 1935 (based on
unidentifiable immature specimens).