Luis C. Muniz
lmuniz at NETGATE.COM.BR
Wed Nov 18 19:31:27 CST 1998
Your situation is exactly the same of us, I think that the best way is
regard this species as nomem dubium and describe a new species based on new
material (that we have in hand), that have the same locality.
The major problem, as Servio wrote, when we choose to name species
inquirenda, is the fact that we will never be able to clarify the species
identity, because the type is lost, with no chance to be discovered and the
description gives no further data.
To be continued...
Thanks to all who wrote, until this moment
At 11:17 20/11/98 -0300, you wrote:
>>The best solution is to regard it as species inquirenda. Doing so, you are
>>declaring that the name remain valid but it is necessary to clarify the
>>species identity problem. If someone discover a type or any other cue to the
>>species identity, it will be simple to attribute the name to the species. On
>>the other hand, if declare it as a nomen dubium, you are definitively
>>declaring that this name, although available, should not be used for any
>>species, as it is applicable to anything.
>This has direct bearing on a situation I have encountered - there is a fly
>species named by Macquart in 1851, for which the unique type is lost and
>the original description problematic (it includes the description of a
>structure which quite definitely does not exist in any fly species).
>However, the remaining features in the description *are* sufficient to
>associate it to one of two extant species, both unnamed (as things stand),
>one of which is geographically closer to where Macquart's specimen came
> Given that there appear to be two taxa which *could* be Macquart's
>species, and that these also fail to match the description (thanks to his
>inclusion of a non-existent structure), designation of a neotype doesn't
>seem entirely appropriate. Likewise, there is apparently no hope of the
>type being discovered, or anything else to allow an unambiguous choice
>between the two extant taxa (a geographic association is a pretty weak
>basis), so I doubt anything can "clarify the species identity problem", and
>species inquirenda is probably out, as well. It would seem to me that
>declaring it a nomen dubium would be the best choice, and that new species
>names should be given to the two taxa at hand.
> But now, a twist: Macquart's species is the only described species
>in its genus (which also happens to be the genus upon which the family name
>is based). Am I correct in presuming that if I designate Macquart's name to
>be a nomen dubium, that I must designate one of the two newly-named species
>to be the type species of the genus? Or *should* I just go ahead and
>designate a neotype, preserving Macquart's name, knowing that there's no
>way anything is going to turn up to clearly contradict such a designation?
>Doug Yanega Depto. de Biologia Geral, Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas,
>Univ. Fed. de Minas Gerais, Cx.P. 486, 30.161-970 Belo Horizonte, MG BRAZIL
>phone: 31-499-2579, fax: 31-499-2567 (from U.S., prefix 011-55)
> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
More information about the Taxacom