[Taxacom] Bibliographic References
xelaalex at cox.net
Mon Oct 22 09:03:34 CDT 2012
I am surprise that you do not accept Name & Author or Name & Author & Year
as a form of bibliographic reference
As that is precisely the very reason early workers* began appending the
author name to the scientific name. That is, to provide the source of the
name and to distinguish one author's usage from another author's.
And today this is continue as what we call citations, that is, the
combination of Author and Year, which provides a link to a bibliography.
So, Tokunaga 1937 and Johannsen 1905 are valid bibliographic references and
Fittkau 1962 names are available under Art. 13.1.2
As for your final comment, "The rules in the Code were made to avoid a too
low quality in zoological nomenclature." one MUST remember that the Code
MUST deal RETROSPECTIVE as well as PROSPECTIVE. So, yes, the Code should set
standard so future work is better, etc., but retrospectively it should
preserve work that met the standard of its time. Obviously by today's
standards, Linnaeus (1758) is "too low quality" to be acceptable, etc. [no
type data!], but that is where we begun, etc.
Oh, well ....
*What is sad is that Today many workers think this convention is a form of
honorific to recognize / reward the person(s) who "discover / named" the
species. Hence, we have the "mihi itch," etc.
From: Francisco Welter-Schultes
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 5:27 AM
To: "Torbjørn Ekrem"
Cc: Bohdan Bilyj ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2
thank you for this PDF file which is very helpful. In the context it gets
clearer that Tokunaga and Johannsen were not set behind the species name
in the sense of authorities.
Indeed what Fittkau 1962 liked to express were subsequent and in Fittkau's
judgement incorrect usages of Pentateura monilis, to which Fittkau
referred by giving the authors and dates where these names were
Fittkau is 1962 and has to follow the rules of Art. 13.1. He did neither
give a description nor did he establish new replacement names. The only
provision that could save these new names from being unavailable is indeed
Art. 13.1.2, bibliographical reference to a previously published
The references to Tokunaga 1937 and Johannsen 1905 can only be accepted as
bibliographical if Fittkau also gave some bibliographical data, in a list
of references. If this was not so, then "bibliographical" would very
probably not be the correct term.
If the two were cited there, then the next question is, had they provided
a differential description, purported to distinguish them from other taxa?
And at least here is where the house falls down. Very probably they did
not, otherwise they would not have classified their taxon with P. monilis.
And this is why both Fittkau's names are very probably unavailable.
The quality of the previous descriptions is not decisive. It is the
intention to distinguish the taxon from others. If other scientists think
that the descriptions of the sensu names from 1905 and 1937 provided
sufficient evidence that a different taxon was meant, this is irrelevant.
The original intention by Tokunaga and Johannsen has to be analysed. And
they very unlikely had the intention to distinguish their taxon from P.
monilis. Even if Johannsen and Tokunaga described an African elephant with
3 legs, the description was not purported to be differential as long as
they classified their animal as the African elephant and no other taxon.
Fittkau 1962 did not do anything useful there. The rules in the Code were
made to avoid a too low quality in zoological nomenclature.
> Dear all,
> To avoid any more guessing of what Fittkau (1962) actually writes about A.
> americana I have attached p. 430 of his Tanypodinae revision to this
> You will see that Fittkau argues that both "A. americana n. spec. (=
> Pentaneura monilis, Johannsen 1905) and "A. moniliformis n. spec. (syn.
> Pentaneura monilis, Tokunaga 1937) are species separate from A. monilis
> and that they can be separated by their original descriptions.
> I would think that this clearly makes both these names available?
> Best wishes
> Dr. Torbjørn Ekrem
> NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet
> Seksjon for naturhistorie
> 7491 Trondheim
> Norwegian University of Science and Technology
> Museum of Natural History and Archaeology
> NO-7491 Trondheim
> Tel: +47 73 59 78 12
> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] På vegne av Stephen Thorpe
> Sendt: 22. oktober 2012 00:39
> Til: Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Kopi: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Bohdan Bilyj
> Emne: Re: [Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2
> My apologies Francisco, I shouldn't have muddied the waters further by
> saying "new *replacement* name" ...
> However, I don't agree that a mere comma is significant ...
> This style of proposing new names is fairly common and standard.
> I haven't seen the relevant references for this particular case, which
> makes it a little dangerous to comment further, but it is clear that *if*
> Tokunaga (1937) redescribed (and/or illustrated) what s/he determined to
> be P. monilis L., then Fittkau (1962) surely proposed an available name by
> way of saying:
> A. americana n. sp.
>>> syn P. monilis Tokunaga 1937
> Fittkau's choice of words was a bit messy, but his intention was clear,
> and there is enough leeway in the Code to attribute to him what he
> intended ..
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>; Bohdan Bilyj
> <biotax at primus.ca>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 11:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2
> Just citing a synonym behind a new name that is not otherwise explained
> does neither fit the requirements of a bibliographical reference under
> Art. 13.1.2, nor that of a new replacement name under Art. 13.1.3.
> There has been some offlist correspondence, so it is now clear that
> Fittkau 1962 set a comma between name and author, probably suggesting that
> "Tokunaga 1937" was meant as a reference in a bibliographic sense. This
> solves the case in a way that the responsibility for providing the
> differential description was forwarded by Fittkau 1962 to Tokunaga 1937
> (this is because the case falls into Art. 13.1.2 and not 13.1.1, so that
> Fittkau is out of the game and providing the differential description was
> Tokunaga's job). Tokunaga 1937 cannot have given a description purported
> to differentiate his or her taxon from the Linnean name (otherwise he or
> she would not have classified the taxon as P. monilis Linnaeus). This
> means that Fittkau's name was not made available in the 1962 source.
> Establishing a new replacement name for a name "P. monilis sensu Tokunaga
> 1937 non Linnaeus 1758" is not possible.
> Certainly I do allow the "sensu". This is probably what Fittkau liked to
>> You are a bit astray here! From what I can tell, it can be
>> straightforwardly interpreted as a new name for P. monilis sensu
>> Tokunaga, 1937. The 'sensu" may not have been made explicit, but you
>> have to allow for some room for interpretation, or we will rapidly
>> fall into nomenclatural chaos!
>> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
>> To: Bohdan Bilyj <biotax at primus.ca>
>> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 2:15 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2
>> Without seeing the original source Fittkau 1962 it is very difficult
>> to judge this case.
>> For example, what do you mean by saying "citing a bibliographic
>> syn P. monilis Tokunaga 1937"?
>> Does this mean that
>> A - a bibliographical reference is cited with a description for P.
>> monilis, which is stated to apply also to A. americana?
>> B - you interpret just the addition of a synonym "P. monilis Tokunaga
>> 1937" as a bibliographical reference?
>> C - you have missed to report important additional information (and
>> this is usually why it would be good if we could look at the original
>> A - in this case the description would probably not be differential,
>> if it referred to P. monilis Tokunaga 1937 and if this is an available
>> Because, if it referred to P. monilis, then the description could not
>> differentiate between P. monilis and A. americana.
>> B - "P. monilis Tokunaga 1937" is a taxonomic name, even if it
>> referred to a nomen nudum. Standing along this is not a bibliographical
>> Authorship and year in such a citation are set individually behind the
>> name of the species following the conventions (in the case of a nomen
>> nudum, or a name cited before the Code was in force) and the rules of
>> the Code (in the case of an available name after the Code was in
>> force) for authorships and for dates, not because the author intended
>> to give a reference to a work. It does not mean that the work was
>> definitely authored by Tokunaga and that it had definitely 1937 as its
>> bibliographical date of publication. If it was an available name cited
>> in 1962, the authorship was selected because Tokunaga was regarded as
>> the authority having established the name, presumably under the rules
>> of the second edition of the ICZN Code. The date 1937 was selected
>> because this was regarded as the true date when the name was
>> established. Citing a synonym alone does not satisfy the requirements
>> of providing a bibliographical reference.
>> C - if Fittkau added for example a page number behind Tokunaga 1937,
>> then the author/year combination after the name would turn into a
>> reference that was meant in a bibliographical sense. Then Art. 13.1.2
>> could be applied, but see A.
>> In cases A and B the name A. americana was probably not made available.
>>> Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2
>>> I would like to determine if the following scenario results in an
>>> available or unavailable name.
>>> So far name satisfies Article 11 which leads me to Article 13.
>>> A new species A. americana is proposed by Fittkau 1962 but without a
>>> description and no type selected, instead citing a bibliographic
>>> reference: syn P. monilis Tokunaga 1937. Under this name a
>>> description is given, but has since been pointed out that the
>>> specimens listed as ?examined (122) consist of 2 possibly 3 species
>>> with insufficient taxonomic resolution to accurately determine if the
>>> description represents one species (as interpreted now) or more. The
>>> specimens are stored in alcohol with only a third remaining in the
>>> Museum's collection. It has also been concluded that the specimens
>>> have deteriorated to the point that identifying them would be very
>>> difficult. In a recent review of the species from Japan, it was
>>> decided to use available synonyms to describe two closely related
>>> Only article 13.1.2 applies which states " be accompanied by a
>>> bibliographic reference to such a published statement" [purported to
>>> differentiate the taxon]. My interpretation of "differentiate" is to
>>> separate from other species, as oppose to describe. There is no
>>> definition given so it leaves me indoubt on how to apply Article
>>> 13.1.2 in this situation.
>>> Supplementing on this example, if the cited reference had listed a jr.
>>> syn. which has since been determined to be a valid separate species,
>>> so that the single description includes two species, would that
>>> change the outcome regarding the name A. americana as an available
>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
>>> these methods:
>>> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>>> (2) a Google search specified as:
>>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>> Francisco Welter-Schultes
>> Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen Phone +49
>> 551 395536 http://www.animalbase.org/
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
>> these methods:
>> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
>> (2) a Google search specified as:
>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
> Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen Phone +49 551
> 395536 http://www.animalbase.org/
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
Phone +49 551 395536
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom