[Taxacom] Family Chilodontidae - unresolved homonym

Dan Lahr daniel.lahr at gmail.com
Mon Apr 26 15:47:34 CDT 2010


Thanks Doug and Gary, this certainly clarifies for me. I missed the
information on Chilodon Ehrenberg 1834 being and invalid junior
homonym, which completely takes the ciliate name out of the game.

Doug brings up an interesting facet: "Assuming that you are correct
about them being considered animals at
the time the name was proposed...".  I did work a little bit on
Ehrenberg's contributions and my impression is that he indeed
considered protists animals, but by no means I would take this to the
bank.  Regardless, my understanding is that these are treated on a
case-by-case basis, since article 10.5 states organisms first
classified as animals but later classified as something else, I assume
people appreciate the diversity of classificatory systems, and there
is no single date when protists stopped being considered animals - it
most certainly varies accross the different groups. In fact there are
still a handful of contemporary authors that consider some protists as
animals when you go deeper into the specialized literature.

Does anybody know how the Commission handles such cases? Is there a
rule of thumb?

Dan

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Gary Rosenberg <rosenberg at ansp.org> wrote:
> As I said in a previous message, the protist name dates back to 1876 or earlier (specifically, Macalister 1876 ( http://books.google.com/books?id=bvAqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA71&dq=Chilodontidae&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1800&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1876&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Chilodontidae&f=false )). It does not complicate matters much, because it is permanently invalid, being based on a genus name that is a junior homonym, Chilodon Ehrenberg 1834, not Ehrenberg 1831 (Article 39).
>
> Gary Rosenberg
> Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
>
>
>>>> Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> 4/26/2010 12:32 PM >>>
> Dan Lahr wrote:
>
>>I'm a bit confused. Why is Chilodontidae not pre-occupied by the
>>ciliate family name? At the time these were treated as animals
>>(Infusoria), insn't this provisioned by Article 2? I know it gets more
>>complicated when protists come into the picture, but that is where my
>>interest lies...
>
> And this is something remarkably obscure which I certainly missed,
> and - I presume - Gary did, as well. Even after you indicated the
> existence of this group, I can only track down three "Chilodontidae"
> Google hits out of 9410 that refer to protists, only two of which are
> in English.
>
> Assuming that you are correct about them being considered animals at
> the time the name was proposed, and about the suprageneric usage
> predating 1912 (and assuming that no ICZN ruling has already treated
> this case), then yes, Art. 2.2 does indicate that such a name must be
> considered for purposes of homonymy, and yes, this complicates the
> issue.
>
> Ken Kinman added:
>
>>        Doug, although there is clearly no totally  non-disruptive
>>solution in this case, I am skeptical that "Chilodontaidae" might be the
>>least disruptive.  I suspect that Chilodidae is indeed the best choice
>>for the fish family, given that taxon's original description and naming.
>
> It is generally not the case that the senior homonym is the one that
> is changed in order to conserve the junior homonym, which is what you
> are proposing. In fact, since you are proposing to suppress the
> protist name, you are suggesting that the juniormost of the three
> homonyms be the one to keep "Chilodontidae". It's not that it
> couldn't be done - the Plenary Power can do virtually anything - but
> making a persuasive case for doing so might be a challenge. From what
> I can glean from online usage, the vast majority of those 9410
> occurrences of Chilodontidae refer to the fish, suggesting that
> *overall* stability might best be served by allowing the fish to keep
> the name (note that there are only 83 hits for Chilodidae, at least a
> few of which are traceable to pre-1950 references).
>
> This promises to be an interesting case when it comes to the Commission.
>
> Sincerely,
> --
>
> Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314        skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



-- 
Daniel Lahr
-------------------------------------------------
PhD candidate
Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
U Massachusetts- Amherst
319 Morrill Science Center, Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003




More information about the Taxacom mailing list