Original Pterophyllum Descriptions

#1
Below is what I received as a cover page on each description. I've added definitions at the top here for anyone who doesn't understand some of the terminology. The illustration for Cuv. et Val. did not come with the description. What I have posted is an illustration that Donna found in a 1925 book.
HOLOTYPE: a single specimen (except in the case of a hapantotype qv) designated or indicated the type specimen (qv) by the original author
at the time of publication of the original description.

LECTOTYPE: one of several syntypes (qv), designated by any author after the original publication of a species name as the 'type specimen' (qv) for the taxonomic name. Designated only where there was no original holotype (qv) [Article 74].

MONOTYPY: a situation where a genus group taxon is established with only one immediately subordinate taxon. e.g. a genus containing only one species. See also Subsequent monotypy. mutatis characteribus, mut. char. - with the characters changed (by), used in same way as emendatus (qv).

PARALECTOTYPE: any one of the original syntypes (qv) remaining after the selection of a lectotype (qv).

SYNONYM: each of two or more different names applied to one and the same taxon. See also : Junior synonym, Senior synonym, Objective
synonym & Subjective synonym

SYNTYPE: each specimen of a type series (qv) from which neither a
holotype nor a lectotype has been designated. The syntypes collectively
constitute the name-bearing type.
Orig. gen: Zeus Orig. name: scalaris
Author: Schultze in/(ex in Lichtenstein Date:1823
Author/date: Sp. (Schultz 1823)
Illus. none
Prim. type: Lectotype Mus./Cat. no. ZMB 2833
Other types: Possible paralectotypes: ZMB 2833(1)
Curr. gen. Pterophyllum Sp. scalare

Orig. gen: Platax Orig. name: scalaris
Author: Cuvier in/(ex in Cuvier & Valenciennes Date:1831
Author/date: Sp. (Schultz 1832)
Illus. none (*found an illustration with Cuv. et Val. at the bottom. See below)
Prim. type: Holotype Mus./Cat. no. ZMB 1347
Other types: none
Curr. gen. Pterophyllum Sp. scalare
Status: Synonym
Image
*Click here for larger image:
http://finarama.com/misc/cuv_val.jpg

Orig. gen: Plataxoides Orig. name: dumerilii
Author: Castelnau Date:1855
Author/date Sp. (Schultze 1823)
Illus. Pl. 11 (fig. 3) *See below Mus./cat. no. MNHN A-0254
Prim. type: Holotype
Other types: none
Curr. gen. Pterophyllum Sp. scalare
Status: Synonym
Image
*Click here for larger image:
http://finarama.com/misc/castelnau1855.jpg

Orig. gen: Pterophyllum Orig. name: altum
Author: Pellegrin Date:1903
Illus. none
Primary type: none Mus./Cat. no. none
Other types: Syntypes (7)
Curr. gen. Pterophyllum Sp. altum
Status: Valid

Orig. gen: Pterophyllum Orig. name: eimekei
Author: Ahl Date:1928
Author/date Sp. (Schultze 1823)
Illus. see below
Prim. type none Mus./Cat. no. none
Other types: Syntypes (orig. 6, now 5)
Curr. gen. Pterophyllum Sp. scalare
Status: Synonym
Image
*Click here for larger image:
http://finarama.com/misc/ahl1928.jpg

Orig. gen: Plataxoides Orig. name: leopoldi
Author: Gosse Date:1963
Author/date Sp. (Gosse 1963)
Illus. Pl. 1 (fig. 2) *see below
Prim. type holotype Mus./Cat. no. IRSNB 459
Other types: Paratypes: (orig. 27, now 26)
Curr. gen. Pterophyllum Sp. leopoldi
Status: Valid
Image
*Click here for larger image:
http://finarama.com/misc/gosse1963.jpg
Last edited by Michelle on Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

re: Original Pterophyllum Descriptions

#2
When I was putting this together, I was bothered by the type specimen for Castelnau's dumerilii. The cover sheet stated it was "holotype" and my timeline says "monotypy." I knew I had gathered my information from Kullander's site, so I went back to double check my reference.

At the top of his page ( http://www.nrm.se/ve/pisces/acara/pterophy.shtml )it states:
Pterophyllum Heckel, 1840. Annln wien. Mus. Natges. 2, p. 334 (type by monotypy Platax scalaris Cuvier). — Neuter.
Plataxoïdes Castelnau, 1855. Anim. nouv. rares. Poissons, p. 21 (type by monotypy Plataxoïdes dumerilii Castelnau). — Masculine.
But toward the bottom of his page it states that the type is by "holotype." This is an area I don't "fully" understand yet. I only understand bits & pieces. Is a "holotype" subordinate to "monotypy?" This I'll have to find out.

-Michelle
cron