[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Mon Jun 4 16:43:18 CDT 2012


The Code does not rule what is a new name under the Code and what is a
subsequent use. This bears the problem that every taxonomist and every
discipline build up their own rules how to recognise a name as new. In
such a situation it ia natural that different views are on the market.

When I read a name as intentionally new in a paper ("n. sp."), and I come
to the conclusion that the name had already been established in a previous
source, then I interpret the statement "n. sp." simply as an incorrect
This is the way I have learned how to do it. It has certainly to do with
traditional interpretations in the field I am most familiar with (European
non-marina Mollusca).

Example: Schütt 1993 (ü = ue) mentioned a name Schileykula inversa
"Hausdorf, 1992" from Turkey in the belief that Hausdorf's paper had
already appeared, and gave a short description for it. It had not, so
Schütt established this name as new: Schileykula inversa Schütt, 1993.
Hausdorf's journal paper appeared a few months later and presented the
name or course as "n. sp.", but in reality it was not a new species
because Schütt had already established this name for this species. It was
also clear that Schütt when presenting this species had his own material,
and not Hausdorf's holotype. But Schütt's specimens belonged to the same
species Hausdorf had in mind, so Hausdorf, had he known that the name was
already established, would have withdrawn the "n. sp." statement from his
manuscript. A new name Schileykula inversa Hausdorf, 1993 was not
established for this reason. His statement "n. sp." was incorrect.

This is the way European (shall include Turkish) malaclogists have
interpreted this case (and several likewise cases, Schütt did this several
times, which provoked discussions and publications on this subject,
publications with many co-authors).

I understood that at least in Alekseyev's 1963 publication we cannot
derive a deliberate intention of establishing a new species in 1963.
Alekseyev wrote this manuscript much earlier.


> Dear Francisco:
> It would be nice if you could, every so often, credit others with some
> small
> degree of perspicacity.
> When I listed the three names in my posting I should have included the "n.
> sp." that the respective authors each placed after their introductions. I
> failed to realize that I would possibly be accused of not being able to
> recognize the introduction of a new name. That they each clearly intended
> to
> introduce a new name is enough. It is not necessary to try to "get into
> the
> minds" of the authors to try to guess what they knew or did not know.
> As for the other part of your message, I disagree about the multiple
> introductions of names based on non-binominal usage but will not attempt
> to
> open a discussion on that subject.
> Regards,
> dick p.

Francisco Welter-Schultes
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
Phone +49 551 395536

More information about the Taxacom mailing list