Mastacembelus simack, the valid name of the Mesopotamian spiny eel (Teleostei: Mastacembelidae) Author Kottelat, Maurice text Zootaxa 2022 2022-07-08 5162 4 446 450 journal article 93670 10.11646/zootaxa.5162.4.9 128321bd-a7ea-413a-a233-9f52f34c31f0 1175-5326 6810548 60B4E3D4-543A-4B2A-A6C4-E26494C1C013 Ophidium simack The Mesopotamian spiny eel was first mentioned in the literature by Alexander Russell (1715–1768) in his Natural history of Aleppo under the local name ‘simak’ (1756: 75, pl. 12 fig. 2). A translation in Dutch by Laurens Theodorus Gronow [Laurentius Theodorus Gronovius in Latin] was published in 1762 ( Russell, 1762: 88 , pl. 5 fig. 1) and only mentions the local name. The species was then reported by Gronovius (1763: 132 [n. 402], pl. 8a fig. 1a), whose text is based on a specimen received from Russell. No name is available from Gronovius (1763) because this work has been rejected for nomenclatural purposes ( ICZN, 1954: 281 [Opinion 261], 1987: 318). Walbaum (1792: 159) created the name Ophidium simack , accompanied by a description and this makes the name available. Walbaum did not examine specimens. His work in fact is a kind of updated version of Artedi (1738) , to which he added species described after 1738; in doing this, Walbaum made available a number of names from pre-Linnean and/or non-binominal works of earlier authors. The description of O. simack is in one of the addenda. Walbaum’s text is entirely based on Gronovius (1763) and includes reference to Russell (1756,1762), this means that Russell’s specimens (including the one given to Gronovius) are syntypes and the collecting site is the type locality. All material originated from river Coic [Queiq] in Aleppo ( Syria ). Wheeler (1956: 92) commented that Ophidium simack is doubtfully binominal and Sufi (1956: 111) that it is nonbinominal. The original description starts as « OPHIDIUm, Simack , capite subconico,» etc., with the genus name in small capitals, comma, species name in italics, comma, followed by the description, or diagnosis, or synonymy. This format is consistent throughout the book, was not unique at that time, and nowadays the availability of these Walbaum names is not questioned.