| Popis: |
Rhinoclemys of Gray, 1863, is interpreted as an "erroneous subsequent spelling," as are other usages of that name, of Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, and is therefore unavailable for the genus of American turtles called Rhinoclemys of McDowell, 1964, and most subsequent workers, Geoemyda by earlier workers and a few current authorities. Geoclemmys of Gray, 1860, is likewise interpreted as an "erroneous subsequent spelling," and is accordingly also unavailable for Rhinoclemys auctorum. The only available name remaining isCallopsis Gray, 1863, which thereby becomes the valid name of Rhinocklemys McDowelletal. Trans. Kansas. Acad. Sci., Vol. 77 (4), 1974. McDowell (1964) established that the Geoemyda of earlier authors, with representatives in both Asia and the Americas, in reality is ageneric composite. He placed American representatives in "Rhinoclemys Gray, 1863 (type R. annulata Gray)", and restricted the name Geoemyda Gray, 1834 (type Testudo spengleri Gmelin) to three eastern Asiatic species. His generic arrangement has been almost universally accepted since then. However, Gray (1863a: 182) clearly stated "Rhinoclemys Fitzinger" in his introduction of the genus, sourcing the name from a work by Fitzinger (1835:108, 115, 124) wherein the name was spelled Rhinoclemmys (except on p. 124 where it was misspelled Rhinnoclemmys). The assumption by McDowell was that Gray's usage of the variant spelling Rhinoclemys constituted creation of a new generic name, which as the earliest applied to any species of his genus McDowell adopted as valid. Unfortunately, Gray's 1863 Rhinoclemys can be interpreted only as an "erroneous subsequent spelling," which has no nomenclatural status, since Gray clearly sourced it from Fitzinger who spelled the name Rhinoclemmys. In his 1863 work, Gray consistently misspelled the name, used six times, but the contention that all were misspellings is supported by his subsequent consistent usage of Fitzinger's original spelling, and consistent attribution of the name to Fitzinger (i.e. 1869:189; 1870a:722; 1871:296; 1873:111). It may be noted that neither of the great generic indices (Schultze et al., Neave) admit Rhinoclemys Gray as an occupied name. Unfortunately Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, as McDowell realized, is not applicable to McDowell's genus. The only available name for any species of McDowell's Rhinoclemys that was in existence in 1835, when Fitzinger wrote |
