Fw: Genus as the species

Walter Boeger wboeger at BIO.UFPR.BR
Mon Apr 12 09:21:48 CDT 1999

Dear all,

I am sorry to bring this up again, but I am not 100% convinced yet...
Article 5 of the ICZN says: "The scientific name of a species, and not of a
taxon of any other rank, is  a COMBINATION OF TWO NAMES (A BINOMEN), the
first being the generic name and the second the specific name....".

In my opinion (still, since I am not convinced that I was wrong at start) is
that EVEN IN A LIST one has to provide the scientific name as such:

    R. piranhus
    R. bulbovaginatus
    R. nyttus
    R. arietinus

and NOT like this:


I know the first option is slightly longer but it seems to me that if you
present a UNINOMEN you are NOT talking about a species nor following the

Just to complement the suggestion (or solution) of Dr. Robin Leech, this is
the way things are done in the realm of helminthology as well.  The name of
the genus Amphithecium is abreviated as Am. is species of Anacanthorus are
cited in the same paper, which is abreviated as An.

I would appreciate your comments over the, what I called, "major probelm"
before...(it may be not such a major problem, afterall).  The historical

Walt Boeger

Walter A. Boeger, Ph.D.
Dept Zoologia, UFPR
Caixa Postal 19073
Curitiba, PR 81531-990
phone: 55413663144 ext. 206
fax: 55412662042
wboeger at bio.ufpr.br
I wrote:

> >  This reminds me a major problem (in my opinion) seem in other "major"
> >  journals.  Some people is allowed to use the specific epithet alone
> > to refer to certain species...  Even if it is often evident
> > (considering the whole paper) which species is one talking about,
> > where does the Article 5 of the code go in this case?

Then, Dr W|ster wrote:

> I have a hard time seeing this as a MAJOR problem.
> I cannot see anything in Article 5 that governs specifically the use of
> the specific epithet on its own, although I would agree that, in most
> cases, the inclusion of the genus, or its initial, would be better.
> The use of the specific epithet alone can be convenient in some cases,
> especially if one is discussing whether the given taxon should treated
> as a species or a subspecies (e.g., "the evidence suggests that smithi
> should be considered a species, not a subspecies"). Also, when dealing
> with a plethora of congeneric species, or when listing them in
> continuous text (as opposed to a table), the repetition of the generic
> initial can get a bit tedious in extreme cases.

Then, I wrote again:

> Dear all,
> Hey, I may be worng afterall.  Do everyone agree with Dr. W|ster
> position????
> Walt

More information about the Taxacom mailing list