Elbraechter, Malte

Gottschling, Marc

Hoppenrath, Mona

Kusber, Wolf-Henning

Tillmann, Urban

Electronic Publication Information Center

632 Version of RecordGottschling & al. • (2607) Conserve Heterocapsa(2607) Proposal to conserve the name Heterocapsa (Dinophyceae) with a conserved typeMarc Gottschling,1 Urban Tillmann,2 Wolf-Henning Kusber,3 Mona Hoppenrath4 & Malte Elbrächter51	 Department Biologie, Systematische Botanik und Mykologie, GeoBio-Center, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Menzinger Str. 67, 80638 München, Germany2	 Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Am Handelshafen 12, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany3	 Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Straße 6–8, 14195 Berlin, Germany4	 Senckenberg am Meer, German Centre for Marine Biodiversity Research (DZMB), Südstrand 44, 26382 Wilhelmshaven, Germany5	 Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Wattenmeerstation Sylt, Hafenstr. 43, 25992 List/Sylt, GermanyAuthor for correspondence: Marc Gottschling, gottschling@bio.lmu.deDOI https://doi.org/10.12705/673.16(2607)	Heterocapsa F.	Stein,	Organism.	Infusionsthiere	3(2):	13.	Nov	1883,	nom.	cons.	prop.Typus: Heterocapsa steinii	Tillmann	&	al.	(in	J.	Phycol.	53:	1320.	10	Oct	2017),	typ.	cons.	prop.The currently accepted taxonomic concept of Heterocapsa F. Stein is based on the author’s published drawings (Organism. Infusionsthiere	3(2):	t.	III	figs.	30–40.	1883).	However,	the	formal	type	of the name was established by Loeblich & Loeblich (in Stud. Trop. Oceanogr.	3:	35.	1966),	who	uncritically	selected Heterocapsa tri-quetra	(Ehrenb.)	F.	Stein	(l.c.:	13),	based	on	Glenodinium triquetrum Ehrenb. (in Ber. Bekanntm. Verh. Königl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1840:	200.	1840),	as	type	of	Heterocapsa. Unfortunately, G. trique-trum applies to a species belonging to Kryptoperidinium Er. Lindem. (Tillmann	&	al.	in	J.	Phycol.	53:	1305–1324.	2017;	Gottschling	&	al.	in	Taxon	67:	179–185.	2018).	Stein	(l.c.:	13)	preliminarily	included	two	further species in his new generic taxon, namely Heterocapsa qua-dridentata F. Stein and Heterocapsa umbilicata F. Stein. Today, the first species is considered a member of Blixaea	Gottschling	(Hansen	in	Phycologia	34:	169.	1995;	Okolodkov	&	al.	in	Mar.	Pollut.	Bull.	108:	289–296.	2016).	The	drawing	and	the	depicted	plate	pattern	of	the	other species do not correspond to Heterocapsa, but also do not allow a clear assignment to any other dinophyte lineage. Thus, none of the original elements assignable to the names of the three species included by	Stein	(l.c.)	correspond	to	the	current	usage	of	Heterocapsa.We analysed Ehrenberg’s original material of G. triquetrum at	the	Institut	für	Paläontologie,	Museum	für	Naturkunde,	Berlin	(BHUPM),	with	the	conclusion	that	Stein	never	consulted	any	origi-nal material of G. triquetrum before publishing the new combination H. triquetra. The confusion associated with the name H. triquetra, and	its	fatal	nomenclatural	consequences,	are	surveyed	in	detail	in	Gottschling	&	al.	(l.c.).	These	authors	noted	that	Stein	(l.c.)	considered	Heterocapsa to be a flagellate and an animal, and so its publica-tion falls under the rules of the ICZN (Ride & al., Int. Code Zool. Nomencl.,	ed.	4.	1999	&	http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/).	This	is	important	for	two	reasons:(1)	 Because	Stein	included	more	than	one	species	in	Heterocapsa, Art.	38.5	of	the	ICN	(McNeill	&	al.	in	Regnum	Veg.	154.	2012)	does	not	apply.	The	description	applicable	explicitly	to	the	taxon	at	generic	level	is	very	brief:	“Am	Hinterleibe	konnte	ich	nur	schwache	Spuren	von	Gliederung	wahrnehmen”	(at	the	abdomen,	I	observed	weak	structures	only),	but	Stein	(l.c.:	13)	provided	clear	diagnoses	against	Glenodinium having	no	shell:	“[die]	Gatt.	Glenodinium	ist	[…]	auf	solche	Peridiniden	zu	beschränken,	welche	einen	ganz	homogenen,	nicht	getäfelten	Panzer	besitzen”	(the	genus	Glenodinium is to be restricted to such peridi-niids	with	an	entirely	homogenous	shell	without	pattern),	whereas	Heterocapsa	has	a	shell	(though	incomplete);	and	against	Peridinium having	 an	 alternative	 pattern	 than	 Heterocapsa:	 “Vorderleib[e]	[…]	aus	[…]	fast	gleich	grosse[n]	Tafeln	[…],	die	sich	nicht	auf	die	Zahlenverhältnisse	und	die	Gliederungsweise	der	Peridinien	zurück-führen	liessen”	(prosoma	consisting	of	plates	almost	equal	in	size,	which	do	not	correspond	to	the	numbers	and	arrangements	in	Peridinia).	We conclude that the generic name satisfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a)	of	the	ICN,	but,	if	it	were	thought	not	to	do	so,	as,	prior	to	1931,	a	generic	name	was	made	available	under	the	ICZN	(Art.	12.2.5	and	example;	Ride	&	al.,	l.c.:	16)	by	“the	use	of	one	or	more	available	spe-cific names in combination with it”, Heterocapsa would in any case be validly	published	under	the	provisions	of	Art.	45.1	of	the	ICN.(2)	 Although	the	name	Heterocapsa was clearly accepted by Stein	(l.c.)	in	other	parts	of	this	original	publication	(for	example	the	detailed	legends	to	the	figures)	and	was	not	“merely	proposed	in	anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon”, Stein also wrote “Deshalb	habe	ich	aus	dem	Glenodinium triquetrum eine eigene, jedoch	nur	provisorische	Gattung	Heterocapsa gebildet” (Therefore, I	have	formed	from	Glenodinium triquetrum a separate, but only pro-visional,	genus	Heterocapsa),	and	this	could	be	considered	contrary	to	Art.	36.1	of	the	ICN,	even	as	this	article	was	amended	at	the	Shenzhen	Congress	(see	Turland	&	Wiersema	in	Taxon	66:	246.	2017;	Turland	&	al.	in	Taxon	66:	1240.	2017).	However,	as	before	1961,	Art.	11.5.1	of the ICZN	(Ride	&	al.,	l.c.:	11)	provided	that	a	name	was	not	made	unavailable	by	being	“proposed	conditionally”,	and	Heterocapsa is again,	in	any	case,	validly	published	under	Art.	45.1	of	the	ICN.Because	Stein	(l.c.)	misapplied	Ehrenberg’s	(l.c.)	G. triquetrum to Heterocapsa,	no	validly	published	species	name	has	existed	for	H. tri-quetra	sensu	Stein	(l.c.)	until,	therefore,	Tillmann	&	al. (l.c.:	1320)	described a new species, namely Heterocapsa steinii Tillmann & al., typified	with	Stein’s	(l.c.)	illustration	(and	epitypified	with	newly	collected	material	from	the	type	locality).	Following	the	guidelines	specified	by	McNeill	&	al.	(in	Taxon	64:	163–166.	2015;	cf.	bullet	point	(2)	under	“Conservation	and	rejection	procedures”)	and	applying	ICN Art.	14.9,	we	here	propose	to	conserve	the	name	Heterocapsa with H. steinii	as	conserved	type	(procedure	2).PR O POSAL S TO CO NSERV E O R R E J EC T NA M E SEdited by John McNeill, Scott A. Redhead & John H. WiersemaTAXON 67 (3)	•	June 2018: 632–633633Version of RecordGottschling & al. • (2607) Conserve HeterocapsaAcceptance of our proposal will permanently link the historical and current usage of Heterocapsa	formally	to	this	name,	but	remove	a	severe	pitfall	in	dinophyte	nomenclature	and	will	assure	the	current	usage of Heterocapsa, an important and frequently applied protist name	(Tillmann	&	al.,	l.c.:	1305–1307).	As	a	consequence,	it	is	nec-essary to accept the name H. steinii for the species formerly known as H. triquetra, which was consistently misapplied for more than a	century.	We	consider	this	name	change	an	advantage	rather	than	a	disadvantage,	as	future	students	of	the	species	using	this	correct	name will demonstrate their awareness of the nomenclatural problem surveyed	here	and	in	Gottschling	&	al.	(l.c.).	If	students	use	the	name	H. triquetra in future, then, until a decision is made on the present proposal, it remains unclear whether the historic usage (i.e., species of Heterocapsa)	or	the	nomenclaturally	correct	determination	(i.e.,	species of Kryptoperidinium)	is	being	adopted.Rejection of the present proposal (and if no further formal action is	taken)	will	force	two	well-established	generic	names	of	dinophytes	to change. Specifically, the taxonomic concept of Heterocapsa will	shift	from	Stein’s	(l.c.)	work	to	the	taxon	that	was	originally	described	by	Ehrenberg	(l.c.)	corresponding	to	the	modern	concept	of Kryptoperidinium. Under such a scenario, all species currently assigned to Heterocapsa	would	have	to	be	transferred	to	Cachonina A.R.	Loebl.	(in	Proc.	Biol.	Soc.	Wash.	81:	92.	1968;	Morrill	&	Loeblich	III.	in	J.	Plankt.	Res.	3:	53–66.	1981),	and	Kryptoperidinium would become a later synonym of Heterocapsa requiring transfers to the latter taxon. Two common, well-studied species currently referred to as H. triquetra and Kryptoperidinium foliaceum	(F.	Stein)	Er.	Lindem.	would also be forced to change names and concepts. Particularly, the well-established name H. triquetra must be currently applied for a species with which nobody associates it. This radical change would most probably not be accepted by the scientific community and with the present proposal, we aim at cutting the Gordian knot described in	Gottschling	&	al.	(l.c.).TAXON 67 (3)	•	June 2018: 632–633

Proposal to conserve the name Heterocapsa (Dinophyceae) with a conserved type

https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47593/1/2018_Gottschling_Taxon_HeterocapsaCons.pdf

Proposal to conserve the name Heterocapsa (Dinophyceae) with a conserved type

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Electronic Publication Information Center