ULOBORIDAE Thorell, 1869

Judson, Mark L. I., 2012, Status of the family-group names of Arachnida first published in Band I, Abtheilung 1 of Berendt’s Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt (1845), Journal of Natural History 46 (19 - 20), pp. 1273-1282 : 1277-1278

Family ULOBORIDAE Thorell, 1869

Mithracidae [sic] C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845, p. 56 (table); C.L. Koch in Anonymous, 1846, p. 871 (table); Koch & Berendt, 1854, p. 5 (table). Incorrect original spelling. Rejected name, based on generic homonym.

Mithraeidae C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845; Koch & Berendt, 1854, p. 27. Justified emendation of Mithracidae . Rejected name, based on generic homonym.

Mithreidae [sic] Koch & Berendt, 1854: Menge in Koch & Berendt, 1854, p. 7 (table). Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Uloborinae Thorell, 1869 , pp. 64–65.

Type genus of Mithraeidae. Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834 .

Type genus of Uloboridae . Uloborus Latreille, 1806 .

The name Mithraeidae has been attributed to either C.L. Koch (1851) (e.g. Kaston 1938), who used the vernacular form “Mithraides”, or to Koch & Berendt (1854) (e.g. Bonnet 1957; Penney & Selden 2006), who first Latinized the name. Mithraeidae C.L. Koch in Berendt, 1845 evidently has priority over both, but it is equally invalid, due to homonymy of the type genus, Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834 , with Mithras Hübner, 1819 ( Insecta: Lepidoptera ) (Code, Article 39).

Because Thorell (1869) considered Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834 to be a junior synonym of “ Hyptiotes Walckenaer, 1833 ”, which he placed in the new subfamily Uloborinae Thorell, 1869 , the question arises as to whether the coordinate superfamily name Uloboroidea Thorell, 1869 should take priority over Deinopoidea C.L. Koch, 1851. Article 40.2 of the Code stipulates that if a family group has been replaced before 1961 because of the synonymy of the type genus, the substitute name is to be maintained if it is in prevailing usage. Article 40.2.1 further stipulates that “A name maintained by virtue of this Article retains its own author but takes the priority of the replaced name, of which it is deemed to be the senior synonym.” Thus, if Uloborinae was proposed as a replacement for Mithraeinae due to this synonymy, the coordinate name Uloboridae Thorell, 1869 [1845] would then have priority over Deinopoidea C.L. Koch, 1851. However, there are two reasons why such an interpretation would be problematic.

Firstly, Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834 is in fact a senior objective synonym of Hyptiotes Walckenaer, 1837 because “ Hyptiotes Walckenaer, 1833 ” does not exist. Walckenaer (1833, pp. 438, 440) mentioned a new genus, which he called Uptiotes , but because no available species were included, this is a nomen nudum ( Bonnet 1957). Uptiotes Walckenaer, 1833 was corrected to Hyptiotes by Agassiz & Erichson (1846), but since nomina nuda are not available names (Code, Glossary), they cannot be emended. References to “ Hyptiotes Walckenaer, 1833 ” are therefore meaningless. Uptiotes was first made available by Walckenaer (1837, p. 277) and emended to Hyptiotes Walckenaer, 1837 by Thorell (1869). Because Hyptiotes is in prevailing usage and attributed to Walckenaer, 1837, it is to be treated as a justified emendation (Code, Article 33.2.3.1), even though there is no evidence of an inadvertent error in Walckenaer (1837).

Secondly, Thorell (1869) did not state that Uloborinae was being introduced as a replacement name and he did not explain the reason for rejecting Mithraeidae. Because he was also aware that Mithras C.L. Koch, 1834 was preoccupied by Mithras Hübner, 1819 ( Thorell 1869, p. 67, footnote 2), it could equally be argued that Mithraeidae was rejected due to homonymy of its type genus. The Code does not have a provision equivalent to that of 40.2. 1 in the case of a family-group name replaced due to homonymy of the type genus, hence the replacement name ( Uloborinae ) would not take the priority of the original name (Mithraeinae) if this were the reason for the change. The Code does not anticipate the eventuality of a family name being replaced because the type genus is simultaneously considered a junior synonym and a junior homonym, hence it is not clear whether article 40.2.1 would apply in this case.

Because all recent authors (e.g. Griswold et al. 1998; Hausdorf 1999; Penney 2003; Wunderlich 2008; Miller et al. 2010) have accepted Coddington’s (1990) view that Deinopoidea C.L. Koch, 1851 has priority over Uloboroidea Thorell, 1869, there seems no point in trying to reverse this priority through application of Article 40.2.1. Even if such action were to be considered desirable in future, the ambiguity of the current rules in respect to this case is such that an application would presumably have to be made to the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature for a ruling.