[Taxacom] Chilodontidae - unresolved homonym

Dan Lahr daniel.lahr at gmail.com
Tue Apr 27 11:20:01 CDT 2010


I found a bit more to this. In the Catalog of Generic Names of
Ciliates, E. Aescht states the following for Chilodon and subsequent
Chilodonella:

Chilodon Ehrenberg [1834] [EHR003:287]; note separetely paginated (cp.
[EHR081: 143]). Ehrenberg (1838[EHR10:336]) stated 1831 as year of
establishment of species, but only cited his paper of [1834]. (some
more non-relevant data here). Homonym of C. Ehrenberg 1831, mollusc.

Chilodonella Strand 1928 [CI1594:31]. TS: C. uncinata (basionym
Chilodon uncinatus Ehrenberg 1838) by subsequent designation (author
not researched). Substitute name of the preoccupied Chilodon.

I guess that settles it for the ciliate (if there was still any doubt).

Dan

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>might I ask if, on the basis that Chilodontidae (ciliates) is invalid, being based on a genus name that is a junior homonym, does that make the next instance of Chilodontidae (fishes) available or unavailable?
>
> Unavailable. Only if the ciliate family name was unavailable (as opposed to just invalid) would the next instance (fishes) be available...
>
> S
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> To: kennethkinman at webtv.net; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Tue, 27 April, 2010 4:25:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Chilodontidae - unresolved homonym
>
> Dear Ken, all,
>
> According to that ultra-reliable(?) source Wikipedia there are 11 genera currently in Chilodontidae (Gastropoda), and 2 genera (with a total of 8 species) in Chilodontidae (fishes).
>
> As a lay person with no expert knowledge of the code, might I ask if, on the basis that Chilodontidae (ciliates) is invalid, being based on a genus name that is a junior homonym, does that make the next instance of Chilodontidae (fishes) available or unavailable? In other words, I am unclear which of these cases applies:
>
> (A) Chilodontidae (fishes) is valid as it has priority over Chilodontidae (Gastropoda), the latter is invalid and requires either a replacement name (which anyone might propose), or a case prepared to ICZN to conserve it over Chilodontidae (fishes)
>
> (B) Neither Chilodontidae (Gastropoda) or Chilodontidae (fishes) are valid, because both are junior homonyms of Chilodontidae (ciliates), and an ICZN ruling is required to establish either of them
>
> (C) Both Chilodontidae (Gastropoda) and Chilodontidae (fishes) are valid, and an ICZN ruling is required to decode between them (and provide a replacement name for the one not supported). (Somehow I think this cannot be).
>
> All answers appreciated!
>
> By the way, I cannot claim credit for being the first to discover this homonymy (though I did find it independently by receiving data on both fishes and gastropods allocated to the same apparent family name). That discovery dates at least to a Wikipedia author in 2007, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilodontidae&action=history , for which some credit must be due.
>
> Regards - Tony
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 12:44 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Chilodontidae - unresolved homonym
>
> Hi Doug,
>         Well, the senior synonym in this case is the
> protist (ciliate), and I don't know of ANYONE who would advocate giving
> it precedence in this case. Therefore, the real decision to be made
> involves two junior synonyms (for the gastropod family or the fish
> family). That one is MORE junior than the other will hopefully not be a
> major consideration.
>        How many gastropod researchers or fish researchers
> will express strongly-held positions (to maintain their own family as
> Chilodontidae) may have some influence.  We shall see.  Being a
> vertebrate biologist by training, I guess I should tend to favor
> stability for the fish family. However, in this case, there is already
> an alternative name (Chilodidae/Chilodinae) available for the fish
> taxon.  It may not have as many google hits, but it is there
> nevertheless. The gastropod taxon has no comparable  alternative name at
> all.  I suspect that alone would persuade a majority of Commissioners to
> vote in favor of the gastropod family Chilodontidae.  Add to that the
> fact that many fish researchers don't even recognize their Chilodontidae
> as a full family (but part of Anostomidae) makes me wonder if they (fish
> researchers) would recognize a name change as problematic as gastropods
> workers would for their family Chilodontidae (which seems to be ranked
> as a full family by all).
>             Anyway, pending a proposal to the
> Commission, and reading comments on that proposal, I would still
> presently lean toward Chilodidae (or Chilodinae) for the fish taxon, and
> Chilodontidae for the gastropod taxon.  But not being a member of the
> Commission, my vote is irrelevant.  As for the senior Chilodontidae (for
> the ciliate protist), ciliate protists have probably always been
> considered "animals" under the jurisdiction of the ICZN (not only back
> in the 1870s, but to the present day).  So I reiterate that this is a
> battle between two junior synonyms, so seniority seems to be a minor
> consideration in this case.  But I agree it will be an interesting case
> to watch, especially if the gastropods researchers and fish researchers
> decide that it is worth fighting over.
>             --------Ken Kinman
> P.S.   Does anyone know how many species there are in the gastropod
> family Chilodontidae and the fish family Chilodontidae?  That might  be
> an additional consideration as well.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Doug Yanega wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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