A type species designation is not required for new genus-group names published before 1931 (Article 13.3). For the Wagner Formenkreis names that I am familiar with, if they are considered genus-group names, type species were fixed in the original publication by tautonymy (ICZN Article 68.4). (The type species of Palliata Wagner, 1907 is Helicina palliata, which was an included species.)

Under ICZN Article 10.4 "Availability of names for divisions of genera", a name introduced for a Formenkreis can be available: "A uninominal name proposed for a genus-group division of a genus, even if proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision, is deemed to be a subgeneric name even if the division is denoted by a term such as "section" or "division"; but a name used for an aggregate of species which is denoted by a term such as "superspecies" is not deemed to be a genus-group."

The essential question then is whether "Formenkreis" is a term like "superspecies", which is best addressed by those fluent in German. Many Formenkreis names for mollusks have been treated as available by subsequent authors (e.g. H. B. Baker for Helicinidae), so it might be cleaner to accept them as available rather than have to track down who first validated them. It might take an ICZN ruling to settle the question.

I just know that several "formae" of Orcula dolium were elevated to subpecies level in the past, sometimes with unclear justification. [See: Harl, J., Sattmann, H., & Schileyko, A. (2011). Types of the extant taxa of the landsnail genus Orcula Held 1837 (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora: Orculidae). Archiv für Molluskenkunde: International Journal of Malacology, 140(2), 175–199.]

My personal view: I would see it pragmatic. If a "forma" was elevated to species/subspecies level in the past and the name is well established in the scientific community, than it should be rather kept than replaced by an unknown name, where no one knows, to what it refers.

Dear Willy,

I've received recently a statement on the problem from Edi Gittenberger. Ill mail it to you.

Kind regards, Klaus

Formally not, but I absolutely support the opinion and advice of Michael Duda.

This term was quite widely used in ornithology. Generally speaking it seems to have been a conceptualization of relationship(s) that was not consistently used in a way that would allow it to always be equated with either a subgenus or a superspecies. It is curious that the "Copenhagen Decisions" (1953), which I have glanced through to check this, seem not to have touched on this term. I believe that this is because the basis for any formal zoological name is a type. In the case of a genus a type species must be proposed, and my limited reading of the literature of the period when the term Formenkreis was being used, particularly by Erwin Stresemann and his predecessors, is that the circumscription of a Formenkreis did not require the designation of a type species. On that basis usually no valid genus-group name was then coined. Obviously a perceived Formenkreis can be now be introduced with such a designation and as long as it includes no species which is already the type species of another genus then there is no impediment.   

Formenkreis are not recognized as valid by the ICZN. For example, A. Wagner in his treatment of the Helicinidae volume 18 of in Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet von Martini und Chemnitz (1907-1911) introduced numerous Formenkreis to organize his various helicinid genera into subgroups (roughly equivalent to subgenera) but are not recognized of taxonomic value. Subsequent authors such as H.B. Baker used some Wagner's Formenkreis names as subgenera, but Baker remains the author of those particular subgenera (or genera).

Interesting but it would be good to know if Wagner suggested his Formenkreis came with type species!

Thanks to everybody for the helpful hints and points of view kindly provided.

In fact, dear David, we met the same problem with same Author (A.J. Wagner) who created many new names as "Formenkreis" in his revision of Cychlophoridae. We keep on our position: these names are not valid as genera and/or subgenera. Linnean classification is a system that goes  like "from the top to the bottom" e.g.: family, genus, species.... The formenkreis concept somehow "diverts" this trend and  goes "from the bottom to the top" which is not what Linnè had in his mind at that time I guess!

Of course, this is just one of the reason we presented in our paper that is about to be released on the next number of Basteria (Revision of the family Cochlostomatidae).

I really appreciate to hear some other's Zoologist point of view about this topic.

Nowhere can I find any type species designations for any of Wagner's Formenkreis.  He merely arranged his species groups under each one as though it were a subtitle.

Thanks. The question asked may arise, and might need a different answer, IF a proposed Formenkreis does come with a type designation! 

Willy De Mattia,

I look forward to seeing your article on the Cochlostomatidae in Basteria.

David

A type species designation is not required for new genus-group names published before 1931 (Article 13.3). For the Wagner Formenkreis names that I am familiar with, if they are considered genus-group names, type species were fixed in the original publication by tautonymy (ICZN Article 68.4). (The type species of Palliata Wagner, 1907 is Helicina palliata, which was an included species.)

Under ICZN Article 10.4 "Availability of names for divisions of genera", a name introduced for a Formenkreis can be available: "A uninominal name proposed for a genus-group division of a genus, even if proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision, is deemed to be a subgeneric name even if the division is denoted by a term such as "section" or "division"; but a name used for an aggregate of species which is denoted by a term such as "superspecies" is not deemed to be a genus-group."

The essential question then is whether "Formenkreis" is a term like "superspecies", which is best addressed by those fluent in German. Many Formenkreis names for mollusks have been treated as available by subsequent authors (e.g. H. B. Baker for Helicinidae), so it might be cleaner to accept them as available rather than have to track down who first validated them. It might take an ICZN ruling to settle the question.

Given that  Gary chairs the Editorial Committee of the ICZN appointed to develop the text for the next Code you are not going to get a more definitive answer than this  

Thanks again to everybody and for all of your renowned answers about this interesting topic.

Don't you think that, if the names introduced as "Formenkreis" will be deemed as effective genus/subgenus, the stability of nomenclature is going to be somehow affected by? I mean: do we really need so many names?

An ICZN ruling is strongly recommended indeed! 

If the names in question are published and available under the Code, ignoring them will not make them go away.  If their type species are reasonably placed other genera, stability would be best served by disposing of superfluous names by synonymizing them.

Gary Rosenberg's comment captures the essence of this problem: I agree that names proposed in the rank of "Formenkreis" are subgeneric names in the sense of the Code. Unfortunately the Code does not give a precise definition of the term "superspecies"; according to Article 6.2 it denotes an "aggregate of species". What is then the difference to a subgenus?? Interpreted semantically, a "superspecies" would still be a species, albeit one that includes many subspecies, which perhaps could also be regarded as species with imperfect breeding barriers. I doubt very much that Wagner and others had this or a similar concept in mind. For example, in his monograph of the genus Pomatias [now Cochlostoma], Wagner (1897) used the categories genus, sectio and Formenkreis, the modern equivalents of which would be genus, subgenus and tribe. His choice of terms can simply be explained by the fact that the terms subgenus and tribe were not in general use at his time. In several cases the names proposed as Formenkreis are not names of included species-group taxons and would therefore a fortiori not fall under the definition of a "superspecies" as prescribed in Article 6.2. The remaining names, which have been taken from the names of an included species, have logically the same status, i.e. they cannot be 'superspecies' either.

In conclusion, the term Formenkreis is not equivalent to 'superspecies', but to tribe. As to the choice of the word 'Formenkreis': In German, Form means just 'shape' or 'form'; the term has often  been used in older literatur to denote a taxon of any, or of undetermined rank in the species-group (and is still convenient for informal use). This is similar to the original meaning of the term species: look, appearance, mien, exterior, beauty, display, idea, model, sort etc. (from spectare- to look), i.e. the visible expression of an inherent concept (same in Russian: vid). 

Correction: I didn't man 'tribe'. there is of course no modern term for a genus-group name in rank below a subgenus. 

Dear All,

in this page (attached as pdf, from Basteria 78 (4-6): 63-88) we presented our point of view as regards Wagner's Formenkreis names.

I've had a chance now to read the article from Basteria. I do not agree with its conclusion that the Formenkreis names are not available. The authors said "It could be argued that Wagner sometimes refers to a ’Formenkreis’ for only a single species, not an ’aggregate of species’. The use of the German plural ’Formen’ [= forms] combined with ’Kreis’ [= circle] indicates however, that he had a variety of forms in mind."

But there are cases where Wagner could not have had other forms in mind, because he treated all known species. For example, in his monograph of Palaeohelicina and Helicina (linked), he named Palaeohelicina hara Wagner, 1905 as the only member of Formenkreis Rhabdokonia Wagner, 1905. He did not place all species in Formenkreise in this work, so Rhabdokonia was not a placeholder for future discoveries in a species group. Sometimes Wagner used the hierarchy Genus, Subgenus, Species; sometimes Genus, Subgenus, Formenkreis, Species; sometimes Genus, Formenkreis, Species (without subgenus). The rank "section" was used in genera without subgenera by some contemporary authors (e.g., Dall and Pilsbry) when the difference was not thought to be great enough to warrant the rank subgenus. Wagner's own work shows that he was using Formenkreis in the sense of section, so it is not relevant that other authors used Formenkreise for species-groups. I conclude that Wagner's Formenkreis names are subdivisions of genera and therefore available.

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7223802#page/247/mode/1up

Dear Gary, thank you so much for your valuable reply. I respect your point of view and it will be an extraordinary starting point for a debate amongst the member of our research group.

Any further remark?

Thank you.

As first author of the paper where we had to face with the interpretation of the article 10.4 of the code, I would like to add my comment.

Gary: the issue , in my opinion, is not what Wagner thought the Formekreis are. The issue is if the term Formenkreis is “such as” superspecies, independently from who used it. Otherwise we would end having not a world with one meaning but one world with as many meanings as the authors who used it.

Now……Mallet (2007) indicates a strict relation between the 2 terms and therefore it has to be established if this relation is at the level of a “such as”. Happy to hear what you think.....