Species-Group Names Proposed Under Provisional Genera
Some authors proposed species-group names for fossils that were difficult
to place to genus. Rather than propose a new genus-group name when in the
future it might prove unnecessary to have done so, they proposed provisional
genus-group names and placed these names in double quotes (" ")
to indicate their provisional status. These generic names have no validity
in nomenclature. However, the species-group names proposed in combination
with these genus-group names are available under the provisions of the Code
[Article 11(h) (iii) (1)] and are listed as available names in this catalogue.
The name "Sciophilites" used by Kovalev (1990) does not
have double quotes, but the intention of a provisional genus-group name
by the author is clear from the text (the paper was published posthumously,
which may explain the lack of quotes) and is treated in this catalogue as
such.
Notes on Loew and Keilbach Names
Where Keilbach (1982) presented species-group names based on cabinet names
of Loew's (1850b) collection of amber fossils, some of these names are validated
by back reference to pagination in Loew (1850b) in which characters are
listed to diagnose the genus-group name in which Keilbach has listed a species
. However, validation of these names is only possible when Loew did not
include any named species in the original proposal of the genus, gave characters
to diagnose the genus, and Keilbach only names a single species (i.e., the
species listed by Keilbach then becomes the type species of the particular
genus by subsequent monotypy).
Loew's Genus Sciobia
Loew (1850b: 34) proposed the new genus Sciobia and stated that there
were 19 species associated with it in the collections he had examined. However,
only 3 of these were given names in his 1850 work: spinosa, peduncularis,
and quadrangularis. Of these 3, only peduncularis was validly
proposed, the other 2 were not given characters to distinguish them and
are nomina nuda.
Edwards (1940: 121) discussed the systematics of the genus Sciobia
and noted that the characters of Sciobia given by Loew could define
virtually all of the genera of Sciophilinae, including Mycomya Rondani,
1856. Rather than cause instability by synonymizing Sciobia with
Mycomya (thus requiring Sciobia to take priority), Edwards thought
it more prudent to synonymize it with Palaeoempalia Meunier, 1897,
a lesser known genus than Mycomya. Edwards designated spinosa as
the type species of Sciobia, saying it was equal to the type species
of Palaeoempalia, P. brongniarti.
Edwards' type-species designation for Sciobia and resulting concept
of genera has been followed in the contemporary catalogues of fossils (Keilbach,
1982; Spahr, 1985; Carpenter, 1992). However, it is incorrect. Since spinosa
is a nomen nudum, it cannot be considered as one of the originally
included species. The only validly proposed species in Sciobia, peduncularis,
has been placed in Mycomya (Spahr, 1985: 79), hence Sciobia
must be synonymized with Mycomya. Edwards' (1940) concern that Sciobia
would take priority over Mycomya is alleviated by the fact that Sciobia
Loew is preoccupied by Sciobia Burmeister, 1838.