[Taxacom] Bibliographic References

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Mon Oct 22 15:36:08 CDT 2012


Description: an elephant with 3 legs
Determination: Elephas africanus Blumenbach, 1797

Description: a fly with two wings
species B

The first description was differential in relation to species B. But not
in relation to Elephas africanus Blumenbach, 1797.

Tokunaga cannot have given a differential description in relation to the
nominal species s/he misidentified. Such is the nature of a sensu name.

Francisco


> Francisco,
>
> Without having seen the Tokunaga publication, I fail to see how his
> descriptions for the relevant taxa could fail to be differential! They may
> not *actually* differentiate, but they surely *purport to differentiate*?
> An imaginary example of descriptions which don't purport to differentiate
> would be something like this:
>
> species A
>
> Description: a fly with two wings
>  species B
>
> Description: a fly with two wings
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen
>
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: Chris Thompson <xelaalex at cox.net>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Bohdan Bilyj <biotax at primus.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 3:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Bibliographic References
>
> Chris,
>
> Initially author and year were given behind the species name as a
> bibliographical reference in some countries, and in some disciplines. Not
> in all countries, and not in all disciplines. The standard to add author
> and date was internationally established in 1905, from which date onwards
> researchers in all disciplines in all countries had to give up their
> previous conventions.
>
> Author and year alone behind a taxonomic name is not a bibliographical
> reference. It can be interpreted as a bibliographical reference in a
> certain proportion of the cases, but not in 100 % of the cases. In
> European malacology author and year give the correct bibliographical
> reference to the origial source in 87.5 % of the cases. In other
> disciplines this would be different, higher or lower, I don't know.
> A bibliographical reference must be something that in 100 % of the cases
> is a bibliographical reference. This is my perception of a definition of a
> term.
>
>> So, Tokunaga 1937 and Johannsen 1905 are valid bibliographic references
>> and
>> Fittkau 1962 names are available under Art. 13.1.2
>
> I did accept them as bibliographhical reference because of the comma
> between name and author/year, and because there were two occasions at
> which this comma was set.
>
> The Fittkau 1962 names are not available under Art. 13.1.2 because the
> descriptions provided in the cited sources were not purported to be
> differential.
>
> Cheers
> Francisco
>
>> Sorry, Francisco,
>>
>> 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 ....
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> *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.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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
>>
>> Dear Torbjørn,
>> 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
>> misinterpreted.
>> 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
>> differential description.
>> 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.
>>
>> Francisco
>>
>>> 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
>>> message.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> Torbjørn
>>>
>>> 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
>>> Norway
>>> 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 ..
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Stephen,
>>>
>>> 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
>>> express.
>>>
>>> Francisco
>>>
>>>> Francisco,
>>>> 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!
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> reference:
>>>> 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
>>>> source).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> name.
>>>> 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
>>>> reference.
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Francisco
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> species.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> name?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bohdan
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> 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) 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
>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>
>>> 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
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> 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
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> 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





More information about the Taxacom mailing list