ICZN 51.3.2

Ron at Ron at
Wed Jul 4 04:27:18 CDT 2001


Wolfgang is correct as it is the original genus that is being keyed by the
parentheses. That is the sole purpose of them - to let the reader know that
the species/subspecies was originally placed under another genus.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolfgang Lorenz" <Faunaplan at AOL.COM>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:03 AM
Subject: ICZN 51.3.2


> Dear Taxacomers,
> on 02.07.01, Derek Sikes <ds95002 at uconnvm.uconn.edu> asked:
> >> 4. A species first published in a subgenus that is later elevated to
full
> genus- e.g. original combination: Silpha (Necrophorus) albus  which later
> becomes Necrophorus albus - does the author's name get put in
parentheses?
> Article 51.3.2 seems to indicate that the author's name does not get put
in
> parentheses.<<
>
> And on 03.07.01, Hendrik Segers <Hendrik.Segers at rug.ac.be> answered:
> >Correct, no parentheses here.<
>
> Is it???
> If yes, I would have to change several thousands of entries in my world
list
> of Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae :-((
> I re-read Article 51.3. ("Use of Parentheses") and compared it to Art. 51
(c)
> of the previous (3rd) Edition of the Code. The contents basically
remained
> unchanged in the new edition.
>
> The meaning of Article 51.3. is that when a species-group name is
combined
> with a generic name other than the original one, the names of authors of
the
> species-group name is to be enclosed in parentheses, and 51.3.2. says
that
> this applies only to changes in the name of the genus and "is not
affected
> by" the presence of a subgeneric name.
>
> Thus, e.g. (my examples),
> A-us (B-us) albus AUTHOR, when transferred to B-us, should be cited as
B-us
> albus (AUTHOR),
> as well as vice versa:
> C-us niger AUTHOR, when transferred to D-us (C-us), should be cited as
D-us
> (C-us) niger (AUTHOR), ... IMHO.
>
> The words "is not affected by", - don't they mean that the ruling is not
> "changed/ set out of effect" by the presence of a subgeneric name, or
just to
> the contrary, that the ruling is "not in effect"?
> Maybe this article was a bit easier to understand in the previous Edition
of
> the Code (then Art. 51(c) (i))?
>
> Best wishes,
> Wolfgang Lorenz
>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list