Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi folks,

The genus Nardoa Gray 1842 was put to synonymy in the 19th century and popped up as a obviously available genus for sea stars (i guess it was Schmidt 1901 or so). What happend there? Can somebody lead me to the right direction where the change was made?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Wulf
-----
http://www.leiopython.de - the white-lipped python site -
http://www.herpers-digest.com - herp related eBooks search -

>>Hi folks,
>>
>>The genus Nardoa Gray 1842 was put to synonymy in the 19th century and popped up as a obviously available genus for sea stars (i guess it was Schmidt 1901 or so). What happend there? Can somebody lead me to the right direction where the change was made?

Such a "change" is not normally possible, unless the original author mistakenly described a starfish (sea star is an incorrect translitteration from Seestern as a reptile.

What *may* have happened is that Gray described a reptile genus as Nardoa, this fell into disuse, and Schmidt then described a genus of starfish with the same name, being unaware that the generic name had already been used for a totally different group of organisms (not all that unusual - see the Ermia/Zhaoermia story). If that is what happened (and I have NOT checked this, so let's not go around alarming the echinodermological community without checking our facts first!), then the starfish generic name Nardoa would be a junior homonym of Nardoa Gray 1842, and a different name would need to be found.

Check out the Zoological Record website for more info (sorry, don't have the URL at hand, a web search should soon reveal it.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

Actually, checking the Zoological Record, Nardoa Gray 1842 is listed as a starfish, so forget my previous message. Clearly, there is some other source of confusion operating here.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

Hi Wolfgang,

well, I have no institutional access to the ZRs, but I have read lots of older papers dealing with python taxonomy.
The python species today known as Bothrochilus boa (ringed python) was known as Nardoa schlegeli Gray 1842 and Liasis fuscus Peters 1873 was known as Nardoa crassa (Macleay, 1886). Later in 1879 Hubrecht introduced the genus Leiopython as an intermediate between Liasis Gray 1842 and Nardoa Gray 1842. McDowell (1975) also listed Nardoa boa (not Tortirx boa Schlegel) Dunn, 1939 as synonym for L. fuscus albertisii. I was just wondering if this might still be a case. Is Nardoa Gray 1842 still an available synonym for Liasis or Bothrochilus. Anyway, Nardoa was actually first used for snake species and not for starfish...

Cheers,
Wulf
-----
http://www.leiopython.de - the white-lipped python site -
http://www.herpers-digest.com - herp related eBooks search -

Species:
Liasis fuscus

Synonyms:
Liasis fuscus PETERS 1873
Liasis cornwallisius - GÜNTHER 1879: 85
Nardoa crassa MACLEAY 1886: 66
Liasis fuscus - BOULENGER 1893: 78
Liasis fuscus - DE ROOIJ 1917: 16
Bothrochilus fuscus - COGGER et al. 1983: 203
Morelia fusca - UNDERWOOD & STIMSON 1990
Liasis fuscus - BARKER & BARKER 1994
Liasis fuscus - MCDIARMID, CAMPBELL & TOURÉ 1999: 168
Liasis fuscus - COGGER 2000: 606
--------------------

and for A. childreni as Nardoa gilbertii:

Species:
Antaresia childreni

Synonyms:
Liasis Childreni GRAY 1842: 44
Nardoa Gilbertii GRAY 1842: 45
Liasis Childreni - DUMÉRIL & BIBRON 1844: 438
Liasis maculosus PETERS 1873: 608 (fide STIMSON 1969)
Liasis childreni - BOULENGER 1893: 77
Liasis childreni - ROSS 1980
Antaresia childreni - KLUGE 1993
Antaresia childreni - MCDIARMID, CAMPBELL & TOURÉ 1999: 162
Antaresia childreni - COGGER 2000: 606
----------------------------------------------------------
-----
http://www.leiopython.de - the white-lipped python site -
http://www.herpers-digest.com - herp related eBooks search -

The first use of the name Nardoa was in 1840 for a seastar. When the name was used in 1842 for the snake it was in error because the name was already preoccupied.

Hi BIC,

thanks very much for the information.
This would at least partly explain why the use of Nardoa was questioned and therefore always put to synonymy. If I understand the code of the ICZN right, the synonym becomes unavailable for python species for all times and should be removed from every synonymy list for python species, right?

All the best,

Wulf
-----
http://www.leiopython.de - the white-lipped python site -
http://www.herpers-digest.com - herp related eBooks search -

OK, tracked it down. As BIC said, the generic name Nardoa was first used for a group of Echinoderms, specifically by Gray (1840). Therefore Nardoa Gray 1842 (snake) becomes a junior homonym of Nardoa Gray 1840 (Echinoderm). That means that the name Nardoa is not available for anything other than the Echinoderms for which it was originally coined in 1840.

>>This would at least partly explain why the use of Nardoa was questioned and therefore always put to synonymy. If I understand the code of the ICZN right, the synonym becomes unavailable for python species for all times and should be removed from every synonymy list for python species, right?

Not quite.

*Any* name used for a given species IS a synonym of the currently correct name, so for instance Nardoa crassa remains a synonym of Liasis fuscus irrespective of the fact that Nardoa Gray 1842 non Gray 1840 is not an available name for any pythonid snake.

However, you could not now use Nardoa as a valid generic name for any genus of snakes, irrespective of whether or not the echinoderm genus Nardoa Gray 1840 is currently regarded as valid or as a synonym of something else.

I'll see if I can find any further details when I get back to the office tomorrow.

As an aside, Nardoa appears to be a popular generic name: there is also a Poriferan (sponge) genus Nardoa Schmidt 1862, which now has exactly the same standing as Nardoa Gray 1842, namely as a junior homonym.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

Wulf: You are welcome.

Wolfgang: I agree completely.

Cheers,
BIC

I agree with this too,

it is important however not to remove it from the synonomy for completeness sake. It still ties in a valid publication that should be noted in any review. Of course there is no way it can resurrected as others have said.

I think I may have said it before, in any taxonomic work all literature, all types must be considered, valid or not.
This is particularly important with a genus name as even if invalid it can still have effects at the species level, though possibly unlikely in this case.

Cheers, Scott
Carettochelys.com

-----
Scott Thomson

If you believe you can or you can't you are always right.