Subfamily Name Research Articles

A nomenclatural review of family-group names in the Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera: Ensifera)

The Tettigoniidae is the largest and most complex family within the Orthoptera, and perhaps expectedly, its systematic arrangement is largely unsatisfactory. Recent phylogenetic studies within the group have been almost wholly at odds with traditional morphological classification, and it is clear that a great number of changes will be made to the family in the near future. To remove the element of nomenclatural uncertainty that will inevitably arise with such dramatic changes, I here provide a complete annotated list of all family-group names proposed within the Tettigoniidae in explicit order of priority. I provide details of the authorship, availability, current validity, current rank(s) and name(s), type genus, stem, and parent taxon of each of the 182 proposed family-group names, of which 171 represent available names. I also make several nomenclatural changes, the most significant of which is the replacement of available but informal groupings (e.g. species groups) with formal tribes, subtribes, and infratribes. Other major changes are the replacement of Nedubini syn. nov. with Apteropedetini stat. nov., the replacement of Eumegalodontina (unavailable name) with Lesinina stat. nov., and the designation of Acanthodidae as nomen oblitum with respect to Pleminiae (nomen protectum). To reduce confusion in future, I recommend that all new family-group names be clearly proposed as new, with a correct rank, stem, suffix, and diagnosis, that informal groupings are explicitly proposed as informal, and that formal names are used and proposed in place of informal names wherever possible. I additionally propose that the suffixes -iti and -ita be used for all supertribe and infratribe rankings within the Tettigoniidae. Finally, I discuss the various names that have been used for taxa between the ranks of family and subfamily, with the recommendation that informal ‘group’ and ‘clade’ names with unambiguous suffixes are formed from available subfamily names.

Mitochondrial phylogenetics position a new Afrotropical termite species into its own subfamily, the Engelitermitinae (Blattodea: Termitidae)

AbstractWhile new species of termites are described every year, the description of species distant from every known termite species is rare. In this paper, we describe one such species, Engelitermes zambo sp.n., an African Termitidae belonging to an entirely new lineage of termites for which we create a new subfamily, Engelitermitinae subfam.n. The subfamily status of Engelitermitinae was supported by termite phylogenetic trees, including sequences from the four existing samples of E. zambo sp.n., which, albeit with low bootstrap supports, placed Engelitermes gen.n. on a long branch sister to Forficulitermes, the two of which formed the sister group of a clade comprising Cubitermitinae, Nasutitermitinae, Syntermitinae and all other Termitinae. The sister relationship between Engelitermes gen.n. and Forficulitermes is further supported by the similar gut structure of their workers. In contrast, the soldiers of Engelitermes gen.n. resemble those of Cephalotermes. Our phylogenetic analyses, including all clades of Termitinae, call for a global taxonomic revision of the Termitinae subfamily names. Finally, our study highlights that new unique termite lineages are still awaiting to be described.

Nolinoideae (Asparagaceae) in APG III needs replacing with Convallarioideae

Chase et al. (2009) attempted a subfamilial classification for the expanded asparagalean families Amaryllidaceae, Asparagaceae and Xanthorrhoeaceae sensu APG III (2009). In Asparagaceae they recognized seven subfamilies including Nolinoideae Burnett (1835: 985, 1095, 1106). The Nolinoideae circumscribed by them consisted of 16 genera including Nolina Michaux (1803: 207). Since the publication of their paper, the subfamily name has been adopted in many taxonomic papers (e.g. Reveal 2012, Vislobokov et al. 2018, Tanaka 2019, Averyanov et al. 2020, Nguyen et al. 2020, 2021, Meng et al. 2021).

Framework of the Alu Subfamily Evolution in the Platyrrhine Three-Family Clade of Cebidae, Callithrichidae, and Aotidae.

The history of Alu retroposons has been choreographed by the systematic accumulation of inherited diagnostic nucleotide substitutions to form discrete subfamilies, each having a distinct nucleotide consensus sequence. The oldest subfamily, AluJ, gave rise to AluS after the split between Strepsirrhini and what would become Catarrhini and Platyrrhini. The AluS lineage gave rise to AluY in catarrhines and to AluTa in platyrrhines. Platyrrhine Alu subfamilies Ta7, Ta10, and Ta15 were assigned names based on a standardized nomenclature. However, with the subsequent intensification of whole genome sequencing (WGS), large scale analyses to characterize Alu subfamilies using the program COSEG identified entire lineages of subfamilies simultaneously. The first platyrrhine genome with WGS, the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus; [caljac3]), resulted in Alu subfamily names sf0 to sf94 in an arbitrary order. Although easily resolved by alignment of the consensus sequences, this naming convention can become increasingly confusing as more genomes are independently analyzed. In this study, we reported Alu subfamily characterization for the platyrrhine three-family clade of Cebidae, Callithrichidae, and Aotidae. We investigated one species/genome from each recognized family of Callithrichidae and Aotidae and of both subfamilies (Cebinae andSaimiriinae) of the family Cebidae. Furthermore, we constructed a comprehensive network of Alu subfamily evolution within the three-family clade of platyrrhines to provide a working framework for future research. Alu expansion in the three-family clade has been dominated by AluTa15 and its derivatives.

The nomenclature and taxonomy of Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae resolved

The two subfamily names Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae and Crassulaceae subfam. Cotyledonoideae were simultaneously validly published by Alwin Berger in 1930. In a long-overlooked contribution, René C.J.E. Maire was the first to combine these two taxa and when he did so, in 1977, adopted the name Crassulaceae subfam. Cotyledonoideae for the united subfamily and unambiguously included Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae in synonymy. However, crassuloid systematists have continued to use the name Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae at this rank virtually exclusively for the past ca. 30 years. This subfamily, as presently circumscribed, consists of the genera Adromischus, Cotyledon (nom. cons.), Kalanchoe, and Tylecodon, and in phylogenetic studies is also widely referred to as the Kalanchoe clade. We do not follow Maire and rather propose maintenance of the name Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae, with a proposal to reject the name Crassulaceae subfam. Cotyledonoideae being under consideration. The circumscription of Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae is here formally amended to reflect its current circumscription as a monophyletic unit.

(155) Proposal to disallow descriptive names for subdivisions of families

As pointed out by Davies & Brummitt (in Taxon 35: 883–884. 1986), the Code specifies only for the ranks of subfamily, tribe, or subtribe that names must be formed from a generic name (Art. 19.1 and 19.3). For other ranks of subdivisions of families, the Code, as now phrased, allows names that are not formed from a generic name: descriptive names. Davies & Brummitt mentioned the names Diandrae, Monandrae, Convolutae, and Duplicatae for groups in the Orchidaceae. However, Art. 10.9 (dealing with types of names of families and subdivisions of families) assumes that all names of families and subdivisions of families are formed from a generic name, excepting only nine family names (Art. 18.5) and one subfamily name (Art. 19.8). Therefore, Art. 10.9 and Art. 19 are in conflict. There appear to be three options to reconcile Art. 10.9 and Art. 19: (1) allow descriptive names of subdivisions of families to be untypified (as those in Art. 16.1); this would require making an exception to Art. 7.1 (and Art. 10.9); (2) alter Art. 10.9 to prescribe how descriptive names of subdivisions of families are to be typified; or (3) reconsider the proposal of Davies & Brummitt (l.c.: 884) to the Berlin Congress, in updated form. This last option seems simplest and least disruptive. At the Berlin Congress, the proposal of Davies & Brummitt was rejected; several attendees arguing that it would limit the use of informal names and clade names (in Englera 9: 71. 1989). Given that informal names and clade names are outside the remit of the Code, this seems an argument that should not be given undue weight (or any). “19.1. The name of a subdivision of a family is a plural adjective used as a noun; it is formed in the same manner as the name of a family (Art. 18.1) but by adding the an appropriate termination (see Art. 19.3) -oideae instead of -aceae.” “19.3. The name of a tribe or subtribe is formed in the same manner as the name of a subfamily (Art. 19.1), except that the termination is -oideae for a subfamily, -eae for a tribe, and -inae (but not -virinae) for a subtribe.” This would disallow the descriptive names of subdivisions of families, mentioned by Davies & Brummitt. These descriptive names would hereby cease to be validly published (Art. 32.1), and would no longer be formal names (they can still be used as informal names, if so desired). There is the slight difficulty that Art. 19 specifies terminations at only three ranks, so that “the appropriate termination” would be too much, whereas “an appropriate termination” is not as specific as would be possible in the case of those three ranks. A further option would be to join Art. 19.3 to 19.1.

Diagnosis of a new subfamily within Barbouriidae (Decapoda: Caridea)

Abstract In a recent revision of the Barbouridae Christoffersen, 1987, the authorship for the subfamily Calliasmatinae was cited as “Holthuis, 1973.” This is incorrect as the subfamily name has not been used before. We here diagnose the Calliasmatinae as a new subfamily and validate the name. All members of the new taxon are endemic to anchialine caves. We also provide a revised list of the species of Barbouriidae.

Hungry scale worms: Phylogenetics of Peinaleopolynoe (Polynoidae, Annelida), with four new species.

Polynoidae Kinberg, 1856 has five branchiate genera: Branchipolynoe Pettibone, 1984, Branchinotogluma Pettibone, 1985, Branchiplicatus Pettibone, 1985, Peinaleopolynoe Desbruyères & Laubier, 1988, and Thermopolynoe Miura, 1994, all native to deep-sea, chemosynthetic-based habitats. Of these, Peinaleopolynoe has two accepted species; Peinaleopolynoe sillardi Desbruyères & Laubier, 1988 (Atlantic Ocean) and Peinaleopolynoe santacatalina Pettibone, 1993 (East Pacific Ocean). The goal of this study was to assess the phylogenetic position of Peinaleopolynoe, utilizing DNA sequences from a broad sampling of deep-sea polynoids. Representatives from all five branchiate genera were included, several species of which were sampled from near the type localities; Branchinotogluma sandersi Pettibone, 1985 from the Galápagos Rift (E/V “Nautilus”); Peinaleopolynoe sillardi from organic remains in the Atlantic Ocean; Peinaleopolynoe santacatalina from a whalefall off southern California (R/V “Western Flyer”) and Thermopolynoe branchiata Miura, 1994 from Lau Back-Arc Basin in the western Pacific (R/V “Melville”). Phylogenetic analyses were conducted using mitochondrial (COI, 16S rRNA, and CytB) and nuclear (18S rRNA, 28S rRNA, and H3) genes. The analyses revealed four new Peinaleopolynoe species from the Pacific Ocean that are formally described here: Peinaleopolynoe orphanae Hatch & Rouse, sp. nov., type locality Pescadero Basin in the Gulf of California, Mexico (R/V “Western Flyer”); Peinaleopolynoe elvisi Hatch & Rouse, sp. nov. and Peinaleopolynoe goffrediae Hatch & Rouse, sp. nov., both with a type locality in Monterey Canyon off California (R/V “Western Flyer”) and Peinaleopolynoe mineoi Hatch & Rouse, sp. nov. from Costa Rica methane seeps (R/V “Falkor”). In addition to DNA sequence data, the monophyly of Peinaleopolynoe is supported by the presence of ventral papillae on segments 12–15. The results also demonstrated the paraphyly of Branchinotogluma and Lepidonotopodium Pettibone, 1983 and taxonomic revision of these genera is required. We apply the subfamily name Lepidonotopodinae Pettibone 1983, for the clade comprised of Branchipolynoe, Branchinotogluma, Bathykurila, Branchiplicatus, Lepidonotopodium, Levensteiniella Pettibone, 1985, Thermopolynoe, and Peinaleopolynoe.

Datziinae as a new subfamily name for the unavailable name Protopsychodinae Stebner et al., 2015, (Diptera: Psychodidae).

In a recent paper a new subfamily of Psychodidae was inadequately named Protopsychodinae. This nomenclatural act cannot be considered as a valid name under ICZN regulations because the subfamily name is not based on the type genus Datzia Stebner et al., 2015, and furthermore the fossil genus Protopsychoda Azar et al., 1999 was originally described under the subfamily Psychodinae. Therefore, the new family-group name Datziinae is herein proposed.

Notes on Early Land Plants Today. 64. Nomenclatural notes in Balantiopsidaceae

During the preparation of the forthcoming world checklist of hornworts and liverworts (Söderström et al., in press.) it was noted that a few taxa need to be validated or combined. The subfamily name Balantiopsidoideae has been used as if it has been an autonym of the family Balantiopsidaceae H.Buch (1955: 23) (e.g. Grolle 1972, Engel & Smith Merrill 1997). However, as autonyms do not exist on any other taxonomic level than genus or species (ICN 22.3, 26.3; McNeill et al. 2012) all subfamilies need to be accompanied by a valid description or diagnoses or a reference to an effectively published description or diagnoses (ICN Art. 39.1).

Corrections to “Padial et al. (2014) Molecular systematics of terraranas (Anura: Brachycephaloidea) with an assessment of the effects of alignment and optimality criteria”

Padial et al. (2014) applied the name Pristimantinae Ohler & Dubois, 2012 to a taxon including the genera Ceuthomantis, Dischidodactylus, Pristimantis, and Yunganastes. However, Ceuthomantidae Heinicke, Duellman, Trueb, Means, MacCulloch & Hedges, 2009, type genus Ceuthomantis Heinicke, Duellman, Trueb, Means, MacCulloch & Hedges, 2009, has priority over Pristimantinae Ohler & Dubois, 2012, a fact that we overlooked and correct herein. Ceuthomantinae is thus the correct subfamily name for the taxon including Ceuthomantis, Dischidodactylus, Pristimantis, and Yunganastes, and Pristimantinae Ohler & Dubois, 2012 is its junior synonym. We provide an amended Figure 22 (page 50) reflecting the current classification of Brachycephaloidea as now listed in Frost (2014) and provide the pertinent correction to page 125 of Appendix 2, which should read as follows:

The impacts of comparative anatomy of electric rays (Batoidea: Torpediniformes) on their systematic hypotheses

The Comparative anatomy of the 11 recognized genera within Torpediniformes is described, systematically categorized, and illustrated in a comprehensive photo-atlas. Data are compiled into a character matrix and cladistically analyzed using parsimony to test hypotheses about the previously recognized subfamilies, while reconstructing the possible evolutionary history of Torpediniformes. Results are consistent with the previous rank-based classifications, regardless of the parsimony criteria used to generate the phylogenetic hypothesis, with one notable exception: a monophyletic Narcininae was never recovered. Torpedinoidea (=Hypnos + Torpedo) is supported by the presence of long, slender, flexible jaw cartilages, absence of a large rostral fontanelle, presence of suprascapular antimeres that are each shorter than the scapular process of the scapulocoracoid, antorbital cartilages that articulate on the anterior aspect of the nasal capsules and absence of a frontoparietal fontanelle. Subfamilial names Hypninae and Torpedininae are redundant with the genus names Hypnos and Torpedo and are not adopted here. Narcinoidea (=nontorpedinoid torpediniforms) is supported by unambiguous character transformations to the presence of a divided lower lip, labial cartilages, laterolingually compressed palatoquadrates, bifurcated antorbital cartilages, a rostral fontanelle, ventrally projecting nasal capsules, a dorsal rim of the synarcual mouth posterior to occipital condyle, posteriorly positioned lateral stays, and obtuse anterior margins of lateral stays. Narkidae is supported by unambiguous character transformations to the presence of an uncovered eye that protrudes above dorsal surface, a shared rim between the spiracle and the eye, an anterior nasal turret that projects ventrally, a nasal curtain that covers the upper lip and dentition when the mouth is closed, tab-like prepelvic processes, a mesopterygium that is shorter than propterygium but longer than metapterygium, a slender median rostral cartilage, and a basibranchial cartilage with an anterior margin that is depressed medially and a posterior margin that tapers.

Revision of the New World species of Erythrodolius (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Sisyrostolinae), with a key to the world species.

The genus Erythrodolius previously comprised ten species of ichneumonids: nine from Madagascar and one from Costa Rica. The current study revises the New World species of Erythrodolius including descriptions of three new species from Central America which brings the world total to 13 species: E. incompletus sp. n., E. luteus sp. n. and E. tenebrosus sp. n. A key to the world species is provided. Justification for the preference of the subfamily name Sisyrostolinae instead of Brachyscleromatinae is provided.

(2186) Proposal to conserve the name Coniopteris against Polystichites (fossil Pteridophyta, Protodicksoniales)

TAXONVolume 62, Issue 4 p. 840-840 Proposals to Conserve or Reject NamesFree Access (2186) Proposal to conserve the name Coniopteris against Polystichites (fossil Pteridophyta, Protodicksoniales) Alexander B. Doweld, Corresponding Author Alexander B. Doweld nicar-sekretariat@yandex.ru National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution), 21 Konenkowa Street, Moscow, 127560 Russian FederationSearch for more papers by this author Alexander B. Doweld, Corresponding Author Alexander B. Doweld nicar-sekretariat@yandex.ru National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution), 21 Konenkowa Street, Moscow, 127560 Russian FederationSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 December 2018 https://doi.org/10.12705/624.21Citations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume62, Issue4August 2013Pages 840-840 RelatedInformation

A nomenclatorial confusion in Tanymastigidae (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Anostraca)

Brtek (1972) established the subfamily Tanymastiginae into Branchipodidae for the genus Tanymastix Simon, 1886 and his new genus Tanymastigites. Although the author did not explicitly designate a type genus, he created the subfamily name on the stem of the older genus that he included in his new subfamily. The name Tanymastix (in genitive singular, Tanymastigis: stem Tanymastig- and desinence -is) gives the subfamily name Tanymastiginae Brtek, 1972.

The status of the genus Bostryx Troschel, 1847, with description of a new subfamily (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Bulimulidae)

The status of the genus Bostryx is discussed and, based on morphological and molecular data, restricted to a group of species related to Bostryx solutus, for which the new subfamily name Bostrycinae is introduced.

Phylogeny of scale-worms (Aphroditiformia, Annelida), assessed from 18SrRNA, 28SrRNA, 16SrRNA, mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI), and morphology

The phylogeny of scale-worms, benthic polychaetes carrying dorsal scales (elytra), including taxa from Acoetidae, Aphroditidae, Eulepethidae, Pholoidae, Pholoididae, Polynoidae and Sigalionidae (Aphroditiformia), is assessed from the nuclear markers 18SrRNA and 28SrRNA, and mitochondrial 16SrRNA and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI), and 24 morphological characters. The data sets are analyzed both separately and combined, with Bayesian analyses, maximum likelihood and parsimony. In total, 56 terminal taxa are examined, including 48 taxa from all scale-worm families, and eight out-group species. The results indicate that Aphroditidae and Eulepethidae are the most basally placed families among the scale-worms. The Pholoididae and Pisionidae are positioned within and synonymized with the Sigalionidae, and Pholoidae may be part of the same group. The subfamily Iphioninae falls out as sister group to a clade consisting of Polynoidae and Acoetidae and is elevated to Iphionidae. The families now included in the Aphroditiformia are Acoetidae, Aphroditidae, Eulepethidae, Pholoidae, Polynoidae, Iphionidae and Sigalionidae, and the subfamily name Harmothoinae and Acholoinae are treated as a junior synonyms of Polynoinae.

A revised nomenclature and classification for family-group taxa of parrots (Psittaciformes)

The last 20 years have seen a resurgence in systematic studies of parrots (Aves: Psittaciformes). Principally but not solelymolecular in nature, this body of work has addressed the circumscription of higher level groupings within the Psittaciformesand relationships among them. Stability has now emerged on many formerly contentious matters at these levels. Accordingly,we consider it appropriate to underpin further work on parrot biology with a freshly revised classification at the taxonomicranks spanned by family-group nomenclature, i.e., between superfamily and tribe. In light of the body of recent work, we advo-cate a framework of three superfamilies among parrots (Strigopoidea, Cacatuoidea and Psittacoidea) within which Linnaeantaxonomy can accommodate present phylogenetic understanding by employing groupings at the ranks of family, subfamily andtribe. Just as importantly, we have addressed numerous issues of nomenclature towards stabilising the family-group names ofparrots. We erect two new subfamily names, Coracopseinae Joseph, Toon, Schirtzinger, Wright & Schodde, subfam. nov. andPsittacellinae Joseph, Toon, Schirtzinger, Wright & Schodde, subfam. nov. We stress that rankings we have applied reflect thestate of understanding of parrot phylogeny and how it can be summarized in a Linnaean system; comparisons with rankings in other groups are likely not appropriate nor relevant.

Nomenclatural emendations of the family-group names Cylindrolepadinae, Stomatolepadinae, Chelolepadinae, Cryptolepadinae, and Tubicinellinae of Ross & Frick, 2007—including current definitions of family-groups within the Coronuloidea (Cirripedia: Balanomorpha)

The coronuloid barnacle family-group names Cylindrolepadinae, Stomatolepadinae, Chelolepadinae, Cryptolepadinae and Tubicinellinae of Ross & Frick, 2007 are considered nomen nudum according to Article 8.6 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but appear in several subsequent published works and internet taxonomic databases. It is the purpose of this communication to rectify this situation. These five subfamilial names are proposed and defined herein anew, as Cylindrolepadinae subfam. nov., Stomatolepadinae subfam. nov., Chelolepadinae subfam. nov., Cryptolepadinae subfam. nov. and Tubicinellinae subfam. nov. The remaining valid family-group names within the Coronuloidea are also listed and defined herein.

Convergent camouflage and the non-monophyly of ‘seadragons’ (Syngnathidae: Teleostei): suggestions for a revised taxonomy of syngnathids

Wilson, N. G. & Rouse, G. W. (2010). Convergent camouflage and the non-monophyly of ‘seadragons’ (Syngnathidae: Teleostei): suggestions for a revised taxonomy of syngnathids. —Zoologica Scripta, 39, 551–558. The phylogeny and classification of the charismatic Syngnathidae (e.g. pipefish, seahorses) has not been comprehensively examined to date. In particular, we assessed morphological hypotheses that previously suggested the three ‘seadragon’ genera (Phycodurus, Phyllopteryx, Haliichthys) do not form a monophyletic group. We used three mitochondrial markers to investigate evolutionary relationships within Syngnathidae, and demonstrated that Phycodurus + Phyllopteryx formed a clade that excluded Haliichthys, indicating the elaborate appendages used for camouflage have evolved independently. A time-calibrated tree revealed the divergence of true seadragons as coincident with other kelp-associated fauna. We found evidence for the resurrection of neglected subfamily names, and recovered Doryrhampinae, Nerophinae, Soleganthinae, Phyllopteryginae, Sygnathoidinae and Haliichthyinae as clades. Even after removing these groups from what is currently recognized as Syngnathinae, we showed that the remaining members of Syngnathinae are not monophyletic. In the light of this information, some conclusions about the diversity of reproductive strategies found within ‘Syngnathinae’ need to be re-examined and further revision of syngnathid classification is needed.