MarBEF Data System



WoRMS name details

Nitokra Boeck, 1865

115198  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:115198)

alternative representation (both spellings in use)
Genus
Nitokra typica typica Boeck, 1865 represented as Nitocra typica typica Boeck, 1865 (type by original designation)
Nitocrameira Liddell, 1912 · unaccepted (synonym)
Transfuga Schmankevitsch, 1875 · unaccepted (synonym)

Ordering

  • Alphabetically
  • By status

Children Display

marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
Boeck, A. (1865). Oversigt over de ved Norges Kyster jagttagne Copepoder henhorende til Calanidernes, Cyclopidernes og Harpactidernes Familier. <em>Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania.</em> 1864: 226-282 [for 1864 however published in 1865]. [details]  OpenAccess publication 
Nomenclature Bowman (1988) argued that, following ICZN (3rd edition) arts. 11(b)(v), 33(c) and 79(c), Nitocra is an incorrect subsequent...  
Nomenclature Bowman (1988) argued that, following ICZN (3rd edition) arts. 11(b)(v), 33(c) and 79(c), Nitocra is an incorrect subsequent spelling, and Nitokra cannot be suppresed as an unused senior synonym, and therefore, the "commonly" used spelling Nitocra should be replaced by the original spelling Nitokra. Some years later, Mielke (1993) suggested that the spelling Nitocra should prevail since "apart from rare exceptions only the name Nitocra has been used since" the description of Nitokra mihi by Boeck (1865). Mielke (1993) suggested to follow Bowman's second choice, "to supress Nitokra and validate Nitocra, in accordance with usage". Some "principal changes" introduced in the 4th edition of the ICZN appear in pages XXVI-XXIX. Change number 12 says "In most cases an author will be required to maintain the particular spelling in prevailing use for a name, even if it is found not to be the original spelling;..."). Also, art 33.3. and 33.3.1. say: "Any subsequent spelling of a name different from the correct original spelling, other than a mandatory change or an emendation, is an "incorrect subsequent spelling"; it is not an available name and, like an incorrect original spelling [Art. 32.4], it does not enter into homonymy and cannot be used as a substitute name, but when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling." The same reasoning was used by Wells (2007:88) who says "Bowman (1988) recognised that the name of this common and speciose genus has been misspelt—as Nitocra— since 1881 and argued that the original spelling (Nitokra) should be resumed. Mielke (1993) disagreed, believing the name that had been in common use for so long should prevail. At that time Mielke’s view would have required a ruling from the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature but to the best of my knowledge a case was not submitted. However, the situation is now resolved—in favour of Nitocra—by the adoption in Article 33 of the 4th Edition of the ICZN, 1999, of a new section 33.3.1. which allows “an incorrect subsequent spelling” to stand when it is in “prevailing usage” and has always been properly attributed to the original author."


Gómez, Carrasco & Morales-Serna, 2012 followed Mielke (1993), Wells (2007) but above all, the ICZN (1999) arts. 33.3 and 33.3.1. In the opinion of Samuel Gomez, the spelling Nitokra should be replaced by Nitocra. [details]

Taxonomic remark this note is from Rony Huys 2023
Boeck (1865: 274) proposed the genus Nitokra Boeck, 1865 for two new species, N....  
Taxonomic remark this note is from Rony Huys 2023
Boeck (1865: 274) proposed the genus Nitokra Boeck, 1865 for two new species, N. typica (type species by indication) and N. spinipes. The incorrect subsequent spelling Nitocra by Giesbrecht (1881: 256) became established in common usage. Interestingly, both the correct original spelling (in the text, except for one occasion on p. 121) and the incorrect subsequent spelling (in the figure captions of Tables I, III–XII) were used by Giesbrecht (1882). Bowman (1988: 174) argued that the correct original spelling Nitokra should be resumed since according to Article 33(c) of the 3rd edition of the Code (ICZN 1985) Nitocra is not an emendation of any sort and is therefore an unavailable name that cannot be used as a substitute name which, if adopted, could have triggered the suppression of Nitokra under Article 79(c). Mielke (1993: 265) had previously advocated the continued application of the spelling Nitocra on the basis of common usage but under the 3rd edition of the Code this would have required a ruling from the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature on a case that was, however, never submitted. Wells (2007: 88) reverted to Giesbrecht’s spelling by invoking Article 33.3.1 of the 4th edition of the Code (ICZN 1999) which states that “... when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling.” Bowman (1988) was clearly correct at the time of writing, but Wells (2007) is right about usage under the 4th edition of the Code and thus Nitocra should continue to replace Nitokra.
 
Boeck, A. (1865) Oversigt over de ved Norges Kyster jagttagne Copepoder henhörende til Calanidernes, Cyclopidernes og Harpactidernes Familier. Forhandlinger i Videnskabsselskabet i Kristiania, 1864, 226–282.
Bowman, T.E. (1988) Nitokra sphaeromata, a new harpacticoid copepod crustacean associated with the wood-boring isopod, Sphaeroma peruvianum, in Costa Rica. Proceedings of the biological Society of Washington, 101, 171–175.
Giesbrecht, W. (1882) Die freilebenden Copepoden der Kieler Foehrde. Vierter Bericht der Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere, in Kiel für die Jahre 1877 bis 1881 (I. Abtheilung), 87–168, plates I–XII.
Mielke, W. (1993) Species of the taxa Orthopsyllus and Nitocra(Copepoda) from Costa Rica. Microfauna marina, 8, 247–266.
Wells, J.B.J. (2007) An annotated checklist and keys to the species of Copepoda Harpacticoida (Crustacea). Zootaxa, 1568, 1–872.
  [details]
Walter, T.C.; Boxshall, G. (2024). World of Copepods Database. Nitokra Boeck, 1865. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=115198 on 2024-06-19
Date
action
by
2004-12-21 15:54:05Z
created
2006-09-26 06:56:50Z
changed
Martinez, Olga
2010-07-28 20:41:46Z
checked
2015-09-03 06:24:32Z
changed
2018-07-20 13:20:38Z
changed
2021-06-01 22:29:10Z
changed
2023-07-31 12:46:31Z
changed

Creative Commons License The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License


original description Boeck, A. (1865). Oversigt over de ved Norges Kyster jagttagne Copepoder henhorende til Calanidernes, Cyclopidernes og Harpactidernes Familier. <em>Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania.</em> 1864: 226-282 [for 1864 however published in 1865]. [details]  OpenAccess publication 

replacement name source Bowman, T.E. (1988). Nitokra sphaeromata, a new harpacticoid copepod crustacean associated with the wood-boring isopod, Sphaeroma peruvianum, in Costa Rica. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 101(1):171-175. (29.iv.1988). [details]  Available for editors  PDF available [request] 

basis of record Huys, R. (2001). Copepoda - Harpacticoida. <em>In: Costello, M.J. et al. (eds.) European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels.</em> 50:268-280. (look up in IMIS[details]  Available for editors  PDF available [request] 

additional source Gómez, S., N.K. Carrasco & F.N. Morales-Serna. (2012). A new species of Nitocra Boeck, 1865 (Harpacticoida, Ameiridae, Ameirinae) from South Africa, with notes on its ecology and remarks on the statusof Nitocra sewelli husmanni Kunz, 1976. <em>Zookeys.</em> 244:33-58., available online at https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.244.2633 [details]  Available for editors  PDF available [request] 

additional source Boeck, A. (1865). Oversigt over de ved Norges Kyster jagttagne Copepoder henhorende til Calanidernes, Cyclopidernes og Harpactidernes Familier. <em>Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania.</em> 1864: 226-282 [for 1864 however published in 1865].
page(s): 274 [details]  OpenAccess publication 

additional source Neave, Sheffield Airey. (1939-1996). Nomenclator Zoologicus vol. 1-10 Online. <em>[Online Nomenclator Zoologicus at Checklistbank. Ubio link has gone].</em> , available online at https://www.checklistbank.org/dataset/126539/about [details]   

additional source Bodin, P. (1997). Catalogue of the new marine Harpacticoid Copepods. <em>Studiedocumenten van het K.B.I.N. = Documents de Travail de l'I.R.Sc.N.B., 89. Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen: Brussels, Belgium.</em> 89: 1-304. (look up in IMIS)
page(s): 274 [details]  Available for editors  PDF available [request] 

additional source Huys, R. (2016). Harpacticoid copepods—their symbiotic associations and biogenic substrata: a review. <em>. In Huys, R. (Ed.), Recent Developments in Taxonomy and Biodiversity of Symbiotic Copepoda (Crustacea) – A Volume in Celebration of the Career of Prof. Il-Hoi Kim. Zootaxa.</em> 4174:448-729. [details]  Available for editors  PDF available [request] 
 
 Present  Inaccurate  Introduced: alien  Containing type locality 
From editor or global species database
Nomenclature Bowman (1988) argued that, following ICZN (3rd edition) arts. 11(b)(v), 33(c) and 79(c), Nitocra is an incorrect subsequent spelling, and Nitokra cannot be suppresed as an unused senior synonym, and therefore, the "commonly" used spelling Nitocra should be replaced by the original spelling Nitokra. Some years later, Mielke (1993) suggested that the spelling Nitocra should prevail since "apart from rare exceptions only the name Nitocra has been used since" the description of Nitokra mihi by Boeck (1865). Mielke (1993) suggested to follow Bowman's second choice, "to supress Nitokra and validate Nitocra, in accordance with usage". Some "principal changes" introduced in the 4th edition of the ICZN appear in pages XXVI-XXIX. Change number 12 says "In most cases an author will be required to maintain the particular spelling in prevailing use for a name, even if it is found not to be the original spelling;..."). Also, art 33.3. and 33.3.1. say: "Any subsequent spelling of a name different from the correct original spelling, other than a mandatory change or an emendation, is an "incorrect subsequent spelling"; it is not an available name and, like an incorrect original spelling [Art. 32.4], it does not enter into homonymy and cannot be used as a substitute name, but when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling." The same reasoning was used by Wells (2007:88) who says "Bowman (1988) recognised that the name of this common and speciose genus has been misspelt—as Nitocra— since 1881 and argued that the original spelling (Nitokra) should be resumed. Mielke (1993) disagreed, believing the name that had been in common use for so long should prevail. At that time Mielke’s view would have required a ruling from the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature but to the best of my knowledge a case was not submitted. However, the situation is now resolved—in favour of Nitocra—by the adoption in Article 33 of the 4th Edition of the ICZN, 1999, of a new section 33.3.1. which allows “an incorrect subsequent spelling” to stand when it is in “prevailing usage” and has always been properly attributed to the original author."


Gómez, Carrasco & Morales-Serna, 2012 followed Mielke (1993), Wells (2007) but above all, the ICZN (1999) arts. 33.3 and 33.3.1. In the opinion of Samuel Gomez, the spelling Nitokra should be replaced by Nitocra. [details]

Taxonomic remark this note is from Rony Huys 2023
Boeck (1865: 274) proposed the genus Nitokra Boeck, 1865 for two new species, N. typica (type species by indication) and N. spinipes. The incorrect subsequent spelling Nitocra by Giesbrecht (1881: 256) became established in common usage. Interestingly, both the correct original spelling (in the text, except for one occasion on p. 121) and the incorrect subsequent spelling (in the figure captions of Tables I, III–XII) were used by Giesbrecht (1882). Bowman (1988: 174) argued that the correct original spelling Nitokra should be resumed since according to Article 33(c) of the 3rd edition of the Code (ICZN 1985) Nitocra is not an emendation of any sort and is therefore an unavailable name that cannot be used as a substitute name which, if adopted, could have triggered the suppression of Nitokra under Article 79(c). Mielke (1993: 265) had previously advocated the continued application of the spelling Nitocra on the basis of common usage but under the 3rd edition of the Code this would have required a ruling from the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature on a case that was, however, never submitted. Wells (2007: 88) reverted to Giesbrecht’s spelling by invoking Article 33.3.1 of the 4th edition of the Code (ICZN 1999) which states that “... when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling.” Bowman (1988) was clearly correct at the time of writing, but Wells (2007) is right about usage under the 4th edition of the Code and thus Nitocra should continue to replace Nitokra.
 
Boeck, A. (1865) Oversigt over de ved Norges Kyster jagttagne Copepoder henhörende til Calanidernes, Cyclopidernes og Harpactidernes Familier. Forhandlinger i Videnskabsselskabet i Kristiania, 1864, 226–282.
Bowman, T.E. (1988) Nitokra sphaeromata, a new harpacticoid copepod crustacean associated with the wood-boring isopod, Sphaeroma peruvianum, in Costa Rica. Proceedings of the biological Society of Washington, 101, 171–175.
Giesbrecht, W. (1882) Die freilebenden Copepoden der Kieler Foehrde. Vierter Bericht der Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere, in Kiel für die Jahre 1877 bis 1881 (I. Abtheilung), 87–168, plates I–XII.
Mielke, W. (1993) Species of the taxa Orthopsyllus and Nitocra(Copepoda) from Costa Rica. Microfauna marina, 8, 247–266.
Wells, J.B.J. (2007) An annotated checklist and keys to the species of Copepoda Harpacticoida (Crustacea). Zootaxa, 1568, 1–872.
  [details]
    Definitions

Loading...


Web site hosted and maintained by Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ) - Contact