Talk:Gymnochanda
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Dispute[edit]
- Boeseman (1957) flagged the genus and species as new. For the present time anyway, and for the sake of simplicity, I interpret Boeseman to have been incorrect that they were new. The alternative interpretation is set out below:
Name[edit]
- Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955
- Gender: [feminine]
- Original status: valid genus
- Type species: Gymnochanda filamentosa Fraser-Brunner, 1955
- Fixation: original designation [see p. 210] [and monotypy]
Synonyms[edit]
- Gymnochanda Boeseman, 1957 [junior homonym of Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955]
- Gender: [feminine]
- Original status: valid genus
- Type species: Gymnochanda filamentosa Boeseman, 1957 [invalid synonym and junior secondary homonym in Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955 of Gymnochanda filamentosa Fraser-Brunner, 1955]
- Fixation: original designation [see p. 75] [and monotypy]