taxonID	type	description	language	source
A83C8795FFBAFFDEC7D2D0DFFBDB36D6.taxon	discussion	Aulonogyrus has been credited to Motschulsky by Régimbart (1882) but as unpublished. Balfour-Browne (1945) stated that Motschulsky did in fact use the nomen in 1853 in association with several valid specific nomina in a published work, but Balfour-Browne, working under an older version of the Code, did not consider the nomen available and credited Aulonogyrus to Régimbart. According to Article 12.2.5 of the current Code, Aulonogyrus Motschulsky, 1853 is available through indication, making Motschulsky (1853) the correct author of Aulonogyrus. Balfour-Browne’s (1945) justification for the type designation remains sound.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFBAFFDEC7D2D277FAA430F3.taxon	discussion	The nomen Cyclinus was first used by Kirby (1827) for a new genus accommodating a single North American species, C. assimilis. Subsequently, Aubé (1836) synonymized Cyclinus with Dineutus MacLeay, 1825. Much later, Hatch (1925) resurrected the nomen Cyclinus for a subgenus of Dineutus, including the original species, Dineutus assimilis, and adding several other North American species. As with the nomen Cyclous, Article 50.3 of the Code applies, and although Hatch (1925) recognized the group at subgenus rank, authorship of the nomen belongs to Kirby (1827). At the time of its original establishment, Cyclinus only contained a single species, C. assimilis, which is therefore the type species of Cyclinus through monotypy. Ochs (1926, 1927) incorrectly designated the type of Cyclinus as Dineutus americanus and attributed the authorship to Say without a date, despite D. americanus being attributed to Linnaeus (1767). The nomenclatural history of the two species, D. assimilis and D. americanus, is difficult and we refrain from discussing it here, as the scope of this paper is limited to genus and family nomina.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFBAFFDFC7D2D453FE6137D3.taxon	discussion	The genus Dineutus was established by the British entomologist William S. MacLeay (1825) to accommodate a large gyrinid, which he named D. politus. His original spelling of the nomen is unambiguously Dineutus. In later editions of his Annulosa Javanica (e. g. MacLeay, 1833), its spelling remained Dineutus, consistent with its original spelling. The first use of the spelling Dineutes of which we are aware is by Cuvier (1832: 253) who stated: “ Mr. Macleay (the younger), Annal. Jav. I. p. 30 forms a peculiar genus, under the name of Dineutes … ” However, several authors, including Wood (1962), in his unpublished revision of the North American Dineutus, and Roughley (2000), attributed the first use of the spelling Dineutes to Aubé (1838). Aubé (1838) credited MacLeay (1825) for the genus nomen, but spelled it Dineutes and indicated that he was not going to accept MacLeay’s genus until after it was confirmed and described by Brullé. Brullé (1835) did mention Dineutus, but spelled it Dineutes, with credit to MacLeay (1825). So it would appear that Aubé (1838) was simply following Brullé’s (1835) lead. Aubé’s (1836) earlier work includes a similar statement further suggesting that he was deferring to Brullé on the spelling of the nomen and other matters related to the genus. The spelling Dineutes continued use in parallel with Dineutus with the former used mainly by French entomologists such as Cuvier (1832), Brullé (1835), Aubé (1836, 1838) and Régimbart (1882, 1902), while the spelling Dineutus was most commonly in use among British and American entomologists like Kirby (1829), Crotch (1873), and later Leech (1939; 1948) and Balfour-Browne (1945). Exceptions to this include the French entomologist Lacordaire (1854), who used the spelling Dineutus, and the British entomologist Sharp (1873), who used Dineutes. Some authors used both spellings including Hope (1838) who used Dineutus in the text, but Dineutes in his table of gyrinid genera. Le Conte (1863, 1868) began using Dineutus but switched to Dineutes later (Le Conte, 1878). Recent authors have similarly alternated between spellings (e. g. Beutel & Roughley 1988, 1994) and the incorrect spelling has unfortunately persisted to the present (i. e. Bouchard et al., 2011). Since the two spellings, Dineutus and Dineutes, have been used in parallel nearly since the time of original description of the genus with neither prevailing over the other (Table 1), it is clear that correct spelling of the genus needs resolution. According to Article 33.3 of the Code, the spelling Dineutus is the correct original spelling, and Dineutes is an incorrect subsequent spelling dating from Cuvier (1832). The first potential attempt to justify the spelling Dineutes was by Régimbart (1882) who used that spelling as valid, but cited the original spelling, Dineutus, attributed to MacLeay. Régimbart’s (1882) acknowledgement of the original spelling but chosing to use Dineutes suggests an intentional emendation of the nomen (Régimbart performed other similar acts: see the discussion under Epinectus Dejean, 1833). As Régimbart (1882) is the only author to have intentionally attempted to emend the name, however unjustifiably, Dineutes Régimbart, 1882 enters synonymy as an unjustified emendation, i. e. as a distinct available nomen (which an incorrect subsequent spelling is not). We therefore appeal for discontinuing use of the name Dineutes in accordance with Article 33, as previously has been done (Ochs, 1924 a: 233; 1924 b: 1, footnote; 1926 c: 133, footnote), and we here regard it as a junior synonym attributed to Régimbart (1882). It is also important to point out that several authors have erected valid genus-group nomina with spellings based on the incorrect subsequent spelling Dineutes, including the extant group Spinosodineutes Hatch, 1925, and the fossil genera Miodineutes Hatch, 1927, and Mesodineutes Ponomarenko, 1992. These spellings are the correct original spellings of these nomina. Finally, another incorrect subsequent spelling of Dineutus, Dyneutes, was introduced by Laporte (1835). It is incorrect and unavailable.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFBBFFDFC7D2D574FCAA31DB.taxon	discussion	Ochs (1926, 1927) presented a comprehensive documentation of Dineutus using the tribe name DINEUTINI without author attribution. This action seemingly implied that Ochs (1926 a) was the first to use it, but harder evidence Ochs did in fact consider himself author of DINEUTINI comes from his checklist in the Catologue of Indian Insects where he credits himself with the name (Ochs, 1930 b: 8). Ochs was also credited with the family-group nomen DINEUTINI by Balfour-Browne (1945). Recently, Bouchard et al. (2011) discovered that the family-series nomen was actually first erected by Desmarest (1851). The discovery of DINEUTINI Desmarest, 1851 renders DINEUTINI Ochs, 1926 a a junior homonym. However, Ochs separation of the two genera, Porrorhynchus and Dineutus, into their own tribe, the DINEUTINI, has been treated as valid, followed by Folkerts (1979) who downgraded it to subtribe rank, until it was most recently synonymized with ENHYDRINI by Miller & Bergsten (2012). For discussion of the use of DINEUTINI, see the discussion under ENHYDRINI Régimbart, 1882.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFBBFFDCC7D2D77CFE9B36D6.taxon	discussion	The genus nomen Enhydrus has caused nomenclatural problems of homonymy with a sea snake and a hydrophilid generic nomina (Balfour-Browne 1945; Balfour-Browne & Brinck 1961; Brinck 1978). The genus was erected by Laporte (1834), who designated the type as Gyrinus sulcatus Wiedemann, 1821. Balfour-Browne (1945) appears to be the first one to have noticed an issue with the nomen Enhydrus after reviewing Neave’s (1939) Nomenclator Zoologicus (Vol. 2: 234). Neave indicated that the nomen Enhydrus was twice pre-occupied, by Enhydrus Rafinesque, 1815, a generic nomen of sea snake, and Enhydrus Dahl, 1823, a generic nomen of hydrophilid. Balfour-Browne (1945) stated that Enhydrus used by Rafinesque (1815) was either an unnecessary emendation or an incorrect subsequent spelling of Enhydris Latreille (1801). He also discovered the nomen Enhydrus Dahl, 1823 to be a part of a “ price list ” without any diagnosis or description of the genera listed, and, therefore, he believed it to be a nomen nudum (Balfour-Browne 1945). Balfour-Browne (1945) requested that Enhydrus Laporte, 1834 be included in the Commission’s Official List of Generic Names, but, if rejected, he indicated that the next available nomen was “ Epinectus (Eschcholtz) Aubé, 1838 ”, a junior objective synonym, basis of the subfamily nomen EPINECTINAE. Despite his proposal, he later decided that Epinectus should actually be considered a nomen nudum (Balfour-Browne 1945; Balfour-Browne & Brinck 1961; see the discussion of Epinectus for more details). Guignot (1954), apparently without knowledge of Balfour-Browne’s treatment of the issue, proposed that the generic nomen be changed to Prothydrus. Guignot’s, (1954) proposal was largely ignored. Balfour-Browne & Brinck (1961) followed up on the issue of Enhydrus and presented a case in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to officially deal with it. This proposal was: that Enhydrus Rafinesque, 1815 be officially considered an incorrect subsequent spelling of Enhydris Latreille, 1802; that Enhydrus Dahl, 1823 to be declared unavailable (for reasons discussed earlier in Balfour-Browne 1945); that Enhydrus MacLeay, 1825 be suppressed since MacLeay’s only species, E. pallens, had been in Helochares Mulsant, 1844 for 115 years; and finally that Enhydrus Castelnau, 1834 be placed on the Official List of Generic Names. The following 1964 official ruling by the ICZN resulted in Opinion 710 with (1) suppression of Dahls’ 1823 work and thus the nomen Enhydrus appearing there; (2) conservation of Enhydrus Laporte, 1834 by the plenary power; (3) suppression of Enhydrus MacLeay, 1825; (4) official acknowledgment of Enhydrus Rafinesque, 1815 as an incorrect subsequent spelling of Enhydris Latreille, 1802; and, finally, (5) suppression of the generic nomen Prothydrus and the family-series nomen PROTHYDRINAE Guignot, 1954.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFB8FFDDC7D2D248FCA135CB.taxon	discussion	The Commission’s Opinion 720 (Anonymous 1964) fixed the issues with the generic nomen Enhydrus, but indicated that the family-series nomen was a junior homonym. The issue of the homonymy of this nomen was discussed by Brinck (1978) in his revision of the genus, noting that it was pre-occupied by ENHYDRINAE Gray, 1825 (for sea otters), which was already placed on the Official List of Family-group Names. According to Brinck (1978), “ After contact with the secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Dr. Richard Melville, I propose a change of the spelling to Enhydreinae pending a decision of the International Commission. ” But it would appear that this case was never pursued and remained unresolved. Özdikmen & Darilmaz (2010) submitted an official proposed emendation to resolve the issue of homonymy between these two family-series nomina. Özdikmen & Darilmaz (2010) addressed the origins of the homonymy between both nomina. ENHYDRINI Gray, 1825 is based on the generic nomen Enhydra Fleming, 1822, whereas ENHYDRINI Regimbart, 1882 is based on the generic nomen Enhydrus Laporte, 1834. The resulting stems for both are Enhydr - resulting in the homonymy of the family-series nomina. Özdikmen & Darilmaz (2010), therefore, moved to have the official stem of Enhydrus Laporte, 1834 emended to Enhydrus-, resulting in the family-series nomen ENHYDRUSINI Regimbart, 1882, which should be placed on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology whereas ENHYDRINI Régimbart, 1882 should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. More recently, Bouchard et al. (2011) also addressed the issue of ENHYDRINI Regimbart, 1882, finding that an earlier family-series nomen, DINEUTINI Desmarest, 1851, had been applied to the same group of genera but predated ENHYDRINI Regimbart, 1882. Bouchard et al. (2011) invoked Article 35.5 of the ICZN to conserve the use of the younger name, ENHYDRINI Regimbart, 1882 due to its prevailing use. Most recently the Commission (Anonymous 2012) moved to grant all of Özdikmen & Darilmaz’s (2010) proposed emendations to removal homonymy between ENHYDRINI Régimbart, 1882 and ENHYDRINI Gray, 1825 in Opinion 2297. Opinion 2297 (Anonymous 2012) resulted in the stem of Enhydrus Laporte, 1834 emended to Enhydrus -, the family-series nomen ENHYDRUSINI Régimbart, 1882 being placed on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology, and ENHYDRINI Régimbart, 1882 being placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. Opinion 2297 (Anonymous 2012) corrected the issues with the homonomy of the nomen ENHYDRINI Régimbart, 1882, however the appropriate nomen to be applied to the taxon remains in question. The senior synonym DINEUTINI Desmarest, 1851 still has precedence via the Principle of Priority over the nomen ENHYDRINI Régimbart, 1882 (and its emendation ENHYDRUSINI Anonymous, 2012), as pointed out by Alonso-Zarazaga in Anonymous (2012). At the time of Bouchard et al. (2011), the subtribes DINEUTINA Desmarest, 1851 and ENHYDRINA Régimbart, 1882 were still recognized, but Miller & Bergsten (2012) recently subsumed the subtribes into a single tribe. Given the nomenclatural calamity of the original nomen of this taxon, the Principle of Priority should be followed giving the tribe the appropriate nomen of DINEUTINI Desmarest, 1851, with ENHYDRINA Régimbart, 1882 (as ENHYDRUSINA) remaining available, should the tribe be again split into subtribes. Opinion 2297 (Anonymous, 2012) merely fixed the homonomy regarding the nomen ENHYDRINI Régimbart, 1882, but did not protect it from the senior synonym DINEUTINI Desmarest, 1851 which has never been suppressed (Dubois, pers. com.). Therefore we promote the tribe formerly known as ENHYDRINI Régimbart, 1882 to be now known as the DINEUTINI Desmarest, 1851 following the Principle of Priority. We have changed the list of all the genera formerly associated with that nomen in order to apply to the tribe as currently understood. The current classification we provide, following Miller & Bergsten (2012), reflects this change.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFB9FFDDC7D2D34CFDEF304C.taxon	discussion	The genus Gyrinus has been variously attributed to several authors by different workers. Aubé (1836, 1838), Regimbart (1883), Ahlworth (1910), Hatch (1927), Ochs (1928), Blackwelder (1944 – 1957) and Roughley (2001) all attributed it to Geoffroy (1762). Dejean (1833), Le Conte (1863), Ochs (1949) and Brinck (1955) attributed it to Linnaeus (1767). Laporte (1910) suggested Fabricius as the author (without a date), and Balfour-Browne (1945) and Oygur & Wolf (1991) proposed Müller (1764). Geoffroy (1762) fully described the genus, but, as others have pointed out, Geoffroy did not consistently employ binominal nomenclature, a requirement for nomenclatural availability (Article 11.4 of the Code). Müller (1764) was next to provide a description of Gyrinus, and Oygur & Wolf (1991), following the opinions expressed by Silverberg (1978), suggested that he is the author based on Opinion 228 (Anonymous 1954), since he named genera along with diagnoses The Commission (Anonymous 1994, Opinion 1754) used its plenary powers to declare the generic nomina introduced by Geoffroy (1762) available and removed Geoffroy’s (1762) work from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, instead placing it on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, with the type species Dytiscus natator Linnaeus, 1758, making Geoffroy (1762) the correct author of Gyrinus.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFB9FFDDC7D2D5C4FF2C338E.taxon	discussion	Authorship of Orectochilus has also been variously attributed to different authors such as Dejean (1833), Stephens (1833), Lacordaire (1835) and Eschcholtz’s unpublished work. Dejean (1833) introduced the generic nomen Orectochilus, attributed it to Eschcholtz, and associated it with several species, one of which was O. villosus, the type species by subsequent designation of Balfour-Browne (1945: 111). According to the Code ’ s Article 12.2.5, Dejean’s genus-series nomen is valid by indication, since it was published before 1931, in a work with consistent binominal nomenclature, and it was used in combination with previously available species-series nomina. Lacordaire’s (1835) description, however, was the first for the genus. Another problem presents itself with the type fixation of Orectochilus and authorship of the type species. Balfour-Browne (1945), in his attempt to fix some of the nomenclatural issues and type designations within GYRINIDAE, designated the type of Orectochilus as Gyrinus villosus Illiger, 1798, by monotypy within the genus, the nomen of which he attributed to Stephens (1835). However, the author of Gyrinus villosus is actually Müller (1776), the first to have provided the nomen accompanied with a short description. According to Article 67.7 of the Code, the type fixation by Balfour-Browne (1945), even with incorrect author attribution, is valid. We wish to clarify that the type of Orectochilus Dejean, 1833 is unambiguously Gyrinus villosus Müller, 1776. Gyrinus villosus has been attributed to several other authors including Illiger, Gyllenhal, and, often, Fabricius. However, their publications date after Müller’s (1776) description that rendered the nomen available. There also exists a subsequent incorrect spelling of Orectochilus, Orectocheilus. Several authors have used this spelling including Hope (1838), Agassiz (1846) and Desmarest (1851), but these all use an incorrect subsequent spelling.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFBEFFDAC7D2D1FFFDA53254.taxon	discussion	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.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFBEFFDBC7D2D7F2FB5C3593.taxon	discussion	Laporte (1835) provided a short discussion of the genus “ Dyneutes ” (a misspelling of Dineutus Macleay, 1825, see above) in which he claimed that the genus was relatively unknown to French entomologists. Although he did not know the genus well, the generic description of Dineutus apparently left him with some concerns. Laporte (1835) explained that in the original description the labrum is described as lacking setae, but after performing dissections he found that there are setae. He questioned whether MacLeay (1825) had actually meant the labium, rather than the labrum, and, given that, he considered the “ large exotic gyrinids with hidden scutella ” to be in the same genus, Dineutus (Laporte, 1835). However, Laporte (1835) decided to erect a new genus, which he called Necticus, to place those gyrinids in case MacLeay (1825) had meant the labrum. His proposal of the nomen Necticus included an indication to Gyrinus kollmani Perty, 1831, making the nomen Necticus a new genus-series nomen according to Article 12.2.5 of the Code. The nomen Necticus Laporte, 1835 is therefore a junior subjective synonym of Dineutus MacLeay, 1825, following Balfour-Browne (1945). Neave (1939) and Nilsson et al. (1989) recognized the existence of Necticus Laporte, 1835 and its homonymy with Necticus Hope, 1838 (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). The homonymy has been corrected by substituting Necticus Hope, 1838 with its junior objective synonym Gaurodytes Thomson (Nilsson et al. 1989).	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFBFFFDBC7D2D2BCFBF433A2.taxon	discussion	The generic nomen Potamobius Hope, 1838 raises a nomenclatural problem. Hope (1838) presented a table of the genera of GYRINIDAE and listed Potamobius credited to Leach, with the type species P. modeerii Marsham, 1802. In accordance with Article 12.2.5 of the Code, Hope’s table with clear indication to the valid species of “ modeerii Marsham ” is an indication. Marsham’s (1802) nomen was actually originally Gyrinus modeeri, and Hope (1838) seems to have simply misspelled it. Hope’s (1838) table includes brackets around genera considered to be synonymous. He considered Orectochilus (which he spelled Orectocheilus) as a synonym of Potamobius, and stated in his discussion of Orectochilus villosus that the species is “ Now a Potamobius of Leach ”. Hope’s (1838) statement gains additional meaning upon reading Stephens’ (1829 a) section on GYRINIDAE. Stephens (1829 a) listed references in parentheses including the author followed by a citation. A source frequently cited is “ (Sam. I. 20) ” clearly referring to Samouelle (1819). Stephens (1829 a) presented two divisions for the species of GYRINIDAE, “ A. Elytris glabris ” and “ B. Elytris villosis. — (Potamobius, Leach MSS.) ”, the latter including species “ 543. 7, villosus ” with “ Gy. Modeeri Marsham ” apparently listed as a synonym. Samouelle (1819) presented a similar arrangement for the GYRINIDAE with the divisions “ ’ * Elytra naked, with punctured striae. ’ Leach. ” and “ ** Elytra smooth, villose. ’ Leach ”. Samouelle (1819) acknowledged that Leach had given him all of his manuscripts for use in his work and he credited Leach for those ideas, including the nomen Potamobius. Hope (1838) was apparently under the impression that Stephens (1829 a) placed the species O. villosus as well as G. modeeri into the genus Potamobius based on Leach’s unpublished manuscript, though that was not clearly Stephens’ (1829 a) intention. Additional evidence that Stephens (1829 a) was merely citing Leach’s manuscript comes from another of his papers published the same year (Stephens 1829 b) in which he included only a single genus in the GYRINIDAE, Gyrinus, including the species G. villosus, suggesting that he did not recognize Potamobius as a valid nomen. The nomen Potamobius was used again for a genus by Samouelle (1819), attributed again to Leach, but for a crustacean, having nothing to do with the GYRINIDAE. This, however, makes Potamobius, as conceived by Hope (1838) for the GYRINIDAE, a junior homonym of Potamobius Samouelle, 1819. The type listed for Potamobius by Hope is “ modeeri ”, which by most authors is considered a junior synonym of O. villosus Müller, making Potamobius Hope, 1838 both a junior homonym and a junior subjective synonym.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
A83C8795FFBFFFDBC7D2D0B4FCB8379B.taxon	discussion	The nomen Trigonocheilus was first published by Dejean (1833) associated with the specific nomen T. rostratus De Haan, but there is no such publication by De Haan and this species nomen is a nomen nudum. Therefore, the original publication of Trigonocheilus does not contain an appropriate indication to a previously described species and does not meet the requirements of Article 12.2.5, and Trigonocheilus Dejean, 1833 is a nomen nudum. Agassiz (1846) emended the spelling of Trigonocheilus to Trigonochilus. This emendation is unjustified according to Article 33.2.3 of the Code, but as Trigonocheilus Dejean is a nomen nudum and an unavailable nomen, so is its emendation. Nevertheless, this emendation is a distinct nomen with its own author and date, as are all unjustified emendations. There is a homonym of the unavailable nomen Trigonochilus Agassiz, 1846, the ruteline scarab genus Trigonochilus Brenske, 1896. As Trigonochilus Agassiz, 1846 is unavailable this should prevent any need for action to remove the homonomy between these two nomina.	en	Gustafson, Grey T., Miller, Kelly B. (2013): On the family- and genus-series nomina in Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 (Coleoptera, Adephaga). Zootaxa 3731 (1): 77-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3731.1.3
