Vipera Garsault, 1764

Dubois, Alain & Bour, Roger, 2010, The nomenclatural status of the nomina of amphibians and reptiles created by Garsault (1764), with a parsimonious solution to an old nomenclatural problem regarding the genus Bufo (Amphibia, Anura), comments on the taxonomy of this genus, and comments on some nomina created by Laurenti (1768), Zootaxa 2447, pp. 1-52 : 31-32

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.195113

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9539D22A-DD41-4336-AF9B-26B71A49A5AA

DOI

http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5629437

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D887CC-FFE4-FFAD-24FB-F9D5FEB1FB4C

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Vipera Garsault, 1764
status

 

Vipera Garsault, 1764  

The plate 666 of Garsault (1764) shows his Vipera   or “Vipere”, clearly an “asp viper”, a common species in western Europe, currently known as Vipera aspis ( Linnaeus, 1758)   (family VIPERIDAE Oppel, 1811   a). In agreement with this figure, we hereby designate Coluber aspis Linnaeus, 1758   as nucleospecies of Vipera Garsault, 1764   . As discussed below, the latter generic nomen is both a senior hadromonym and senior doxisonym of Vipera Laurenti, 1768   .

Laurenti’s (1768: 99) genus Vipera   was described with ten prenucleospecies. The nomina of two of them, Vipera Francisci Redi   and Vipera Mosis Charas   , are trinomina, but, as discussed above, they can be “saved” through the use of Article 11.9. 5, and must now be spelt Vipera francisciredi   and Vipera mosischaras   .

Gmelin (1789: 1091) created the nomen Coluber redi   . He mentioned the nomen Vipera Francisci Redi   in its synonymy, so his nomen must be considered an autoneonym of Vipera francisciredi Laurenti, 1768   , as acknowledged by Mertens & Wermuth (1960: 195) and McDiarmid et al. (1999: 393). The nomen Coluber redi Gmelin, 1789   is an invalid junior isonym of Vipera francisciredi Laurenti, 1768   , therefore a nomen distinct from the latter. It was not part of the prenucleospecies of the genus Vipera Laurenti, 1768   , and is therefore not eligible for nucleospecies designation for the latter.

As a consequence, Fitzinger’s (1843: 28) designation of this nominal species (as “ Vip. Redii Latr.”) as nucleospecies of Vipera   , is invalid. It is therefore in error that Stejneger (1936: 140) wrote: “ This being Laurenti’s Vipera francisci redi   which equals [sic] Coluber aspis Linnaeus   , the latter becomes the genotype of Vipera   ”. This statement is twice wrong because neither Coluber redi   nor Coluber aspis   were members of the prenucleospecies of Vipera Laurenti, 1768   . However, some subsequent authors ( Mertens & Müller 1940: 54; McDiarmid et al. 1999: 389) followed this error and considered Coluber redi Gmelin, 1789   as the nucleospecies of Vipera Laurenti, 1768   . Mertens & Wermuth’s (1960: 194) subsequent mention of Vipera francisci redi   as “ species typica ” of Vipera Laurenti, 1768   was the first to cite this biological species under the nomen used by Laurenti (1768). This statement was repeated by Bruno (1985: 40). Although based on a wrong interpretation, this would indeed be the valid designation of a nucleospecies for this genus if it was not predated by another designation. As a matter of fact, and even if they ignored it later, Mertens & Müller (1928: 51) had previously designated Vipera illyrica Laurenti, 1768   as nucleospecies of Vipera Laurenti, 1768   . This nominal species was part of the prenucleospecies of the genus, so this designation, which is the first Code -compliant one to have been published, is valid. The nomen Vipera illyrica   is a junior doxisonym of Vipera ammodytes ( Linnaeus, 1758)   (see Mertens & Wermuth 1960: 194).

Vipera Laurenti, 1768   is therefore an invalid junior doxisonym of Vipera Garsault, 1764   . As both taxa Coluber aspis Linnaeus, 1758   and Vipera illyrica Laurenti, 1768   are currently referred by all authors to the same genus Vipera   and even to the same “group” (e.g., Obst 1983) or subgenus Vipera   (e.g., Mallow et al., 2003), the shift of authorship and date of the nomen of this genus has no disturbing nomenclatural consequences and must be implemented, as already suggested by Welter-Schultes & Klug (2009: 238). Therefore no change is required in the binomina of the 27 species currently recognized in this genus ( Mallow et al. 2003) and their subspecies. The only change needed in their nominal-complexes is the inclusion of the author’s name   and date between parentheses, to point to the transfer from Vipera Laurenti, 1768   to Vipera Garsault, 1764   .

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Chordata

Class

Reptilia

Order

Squamata

Family

Viperidae

Loc

Vipera Garsault, 1764

Dubois, Alain & Bour, Roger 2010
2010
Loc

Vipera

Laurenti 1768
1768
Loc

Vipera illyrica

Laurenti 1768
1768
Loc

Vipera

Laurenti 1768
1768
Loc

Vipera

Garsault 1764
1764
Loc

Vipera

Garsault 1764
1764
Loc

Coluber aspis

Linnaeus 1758
1758