是节头虫(Arthricocephalus),不是似节头虫(Arthricocephalites)--评申震等《寒武纪似节头虫Arthricocephalites及其地层意义》一文

ARTHRICOCEPHALITESIS ONE OF THE JUNIOR SYNONYMS OF ARTHRICOCEPHALUS——COMMENTS ON “ARTHRICOCEPHALITES(TRILOBITE)FROM THE CAMBRIAN AND ITS STRATIGRAPHIC SIGNIFICANCE”BY SHEN ET AL.,2016

彭善池等(2015)指出:似节头虫属Arthricocephalites,似节头虫亚属Arthricocephalus(Arthricocephalites)和漂游虫属Haliplanktos三者都是节头虫属Arthricocephalus的晚出异名,应予废弃。申震等(2016)《寒武纪似节头虫Arthricocephalites及其地层意义》一文,继续使用了"似节头虫"这一无效名称,并对彭善池等推断节头虫独模种乔氏节头虫Arthricocephalus chauveaui的"正模"(视为已指定的选模)提出质疑。本文回应这一质疑。文中介绍P.D.兰等(1988)一文指定"选模"的经过。根据P.D.兰本人提供的信息、该文英文原稿的相关论述与中方第三作者译文的差异、以及由英方第二作者认定和发表的与该文不一样的选模等信息,说明P.D.兰等(1988)的英文原稿为乔氏节头虫指定的选模与彭善池等的推断一致,为一背壳。P.D.兰等(1988)所指定的"头盖",是论文发表时中方第三作者临时更改所致。本文论证了"正模"背壳也是Arthricocephalus命名者Bergeron(1899)的原始插图和原始描述所依据的唯一标本。P.D.兰等(1988)的指定既违背命名者的意愿也违背该文英方作者的意愿。《依据国际动物命名法规》的相关规定,P.D.兰等(1988)一文中所指定的"选模"是无效的。文中再次指出,Arthricocephalites是无效的废名,申震等(2016)归于Arthricocephalites的标本都应重新归入Arthricocephalus。

As concluded by Peng et al.（2015）,Arthricocephalites,Arthricocephalus（Arthricocephalites）and Haliplanktos are junior synonyms of Arthricocephalus and should be abandoned.In their recent paper,entitled as ＂Arthricocephalites（trilobite）from the Cambrian and its stratigraphic significance＂,Shen et al.（2016, Acta Palaeontologica Sinica,55（1）：9-18）continue to use the abandoned name of Arthricocephalites to accommodate two species that are ought to assign to Arthricocephalus.The paper regarded a cranidium assigned by Lane et al.（1988）as the name-bearing lectotype rather than the ＂holotype＂exoskeleton,fixed by inference of the original illustration and description of Bergeron（1899） as argued deductively by Peng et al.（2015）,which is deemed to have been designed as lectotype for Arthricocephalus chauveaui,the type species of monotypic Arthricocephalus. This paper responded their query by affirming that the original description and illustration of Bergeron（1899）were principally based on a single specimen,the inferred＂holotype＂and the largest exoskeleton in Bergeron＇s type series,and by demonstrating the evidences showing the ＂holotype＂exoskeleton designed originally by the first two co-authors of Lane et al.（1988）was changed subsequently with a cranidium by the third co-author without their knowledge until the paper got published. All evidences support the fact that the final designation of Lane et al.（1988）is against the wishes of either Bergeron or the first two co-authors of Lane et al.（1988）.In accordance with the related Articles of the International Cord of Zoological Nomenclature（I.C.Z. N., 1999）, their designation is proved to be invalid.Because of the status of junior synonym for Arthricocephalites,all the specimens described by Shen et al.（2016）should be transferred to Arthricocephalus.In addition,the specific assignments of Shen et al.（2016）for their specimens are also unreliable.