On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga) Author Gustafson, Grey T. Author Miller, Kelly B. text Zootaxa 2013 3731 1 77 105 journal article http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3 b8d20e17-0b0e-476c-8fc2-5460b9002b7e 1175-5326 217043 BBDB8453-1703-40E5-8F84-2FEF10435619 Epinectus Dejean, 1833 The name Epinectus was first published by Dejean ( 1833 ), attributed to an unpublished work by Eschcholtz, to which it was also attributed by later authors (Aubé 1838 ; Regimbart 1877 ; Balfour-Browne 1945 ). Dejean’s ( 1833 ) catalogue did not include any descriptions, only a list of nomina, and for this reason Balfour-Browne ( 1945 ) believed that Epinectus Eschcholtz should be considered a nomen nudum following Opinion 1 of the ICZN ( 1944 ). Balfour-Browne ( 1945 ) then suggested that Aubé ( 1836 ) made the nomen available by listing it as a synonym associated with a description. However, Dejean’s ( 1833 ) lack of description is not what made Epinectus a nomen nudum at that time according to the current Code . Dejean’s ( 1833 ) work often indicated valid species nomina according to Article 12.2 . 5 . In the case of Epinectus , the indication Dejean ( 1833 ) makes, is subject to some interpretation. The species associated with the generic concept of Epinectus is “ sulcatus Dej.” It is reasonable to assume Dejean is referring to Gyrinus sulcatus , as Aubé ( 1836 ), Balfour-Browne ( 1945 ) and Brinck ( 1961 ) assumed, the authorship of that species is consistently attributed to Wiedeman ( 1821 ), not Dejean. If Dejean ( 1833 ) was accrediting himself with the specific nomen sulcatus it would render Epinectus Dejean, 1833 a nomen nudum under the current Code as it would be lacking reference to a valid species nomen or reference. However, if one refers to Aubé ( 1836 ) it appears that Dejean’s action many not have been to suggest his authorship of the specific nomen sulcatus , but to suggest a new combination of which he as well as Aubé (1836, 1838) credit him authorship. Therefore, Dejean’s ( 1833 ) indication could be treated as to a valid species or reference. This would result in Dejean ( 1833 ) taking authorship of Epinectus and the nomen being available and valid, rendering Enhydrus Laporte, 1834 a junior objective synonym. Dejean ( 1833 ) however, was inconsistent with accrediting himself for all new combinations as can be clearly seen with the nomen Orectochilus , or his new nomen Trigonocheilus , which includes previously described nomina, where Dejean does not give authorship to himself with each new combination. Given this uncertainty, the most direct route is to assume Dejean ( 1833 ) was ascribing himself with authorship to the specific nomen sulcatus rendering Epinectus Dejean, 1833 a nomen nudum . This prevents further nomenclatural calamity with the nomen Enhydrus , and is in line with the Commission’s ruling of Opinion 714 (Anonymous, 1964 ), which already deemed Epinectus Dejean, 1833 a nomen nudum . The nomen Epinectus again appeared in use by Régimbart ( 1877 ) as a subgenus of Enhydrus . In this same work Régimbart ( 1877 ) created an unjustified emendation of the spelling, simply stating “the name of Epinectus or better Epinectes ” (translated). Régimbart ( 1877 ) divided the genus Enhydrus into two subgenera with Epinectus including Gyrinus sulcatus and Enhydrus s. str. including the Australian species then placed in Enhydrus (Balfour- Browne & Brinck 1961 ). Later, Régimbart ( 1882 ) erected the genus Macrogyrus to include the Australian Enhydrus s. str. species and relegated his name Epinectes Regimbart, 1877 to synonymy (Balfour-Browne & Brinck 1961 ). For this reason Balfour-Browne & Brinck ( 1961 ) requested that Epinectes Régimbart, 1877 be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology despite his earlier (Balfour-Browne 1945 ) promotion of the use of Epinectus Aubé, 1838 , and EPINECTINAE (Balfour-Browne 1945 ) instead of Enhydrus and ENHYDRINAE . Balfour-Browne & Brinck ( 1961 ) also suggested that Epinectus be considered a nomen nudum , since they believed Dejean’s ( 1833 ) indication to be invalid. Balfour-Browne & Brinck’s ( 1961 ) proposal resulted in Opinion 710 (Anonymous 1964 ) placing Epinectus and Epinectes on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology , with Epinectus Dejean, 1833 as a nomen nudum and Epinectes Régimbart, 1877 as a junior objective synonym of Enhydrus .