[Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Mon Oct 22 15:47:05 CDT 2012


> Francisco,
>
>>In zoology we go by the rules of the Code and not by the intention of an
>> author<
>
> I didn't say otherwise! I said that *given ambiguity in the Code*, we
> should disambiguate, all other things being equal, in a way that is is
> accord with an author's clear intention(s)
>
> A 'bibliographic reference' is *anything* which unambigously points to a
> publication

Intrinsically, then I agree with you. The reference must be visibly
bibliographical in the original source itself. And then of course, an
author-year combination can be a bibliographical reference.

Just giving author and year behind a genus-species combination as such is
not bibliographical - also if we know by secondary research that this one
author had only published one work in that year. This is only
bibliographical if the bibliographic nature of that author/year
combination is explained in the work itself. Because the author can also
have written many other unpublished things in that same year.

Also giving an author alone behind a taxonomic name can be a
bibliographical reference. But only if the author explained in the work
itself that the citation of the name of this author should always refer to
one precisely determined published work.

If the bibliographic nature of the citation is nowhere explained in the
original source, then the reference is not bibliographical.

Cheers
Francisco


>
> Cheers,
>
> 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: Monday, 22 October 2012 10:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2
>
> Stephen,
> the intention of Fittkau is irrelevant. In zoology we go by the rules of
> the Code and not by the intention of an author. If Fittkau thought that a
> new species is distinguished by others only by being more beautiful, this
> is also an intention to provide a differential description. But the
> community would also not accept it as actually being one.
>
> I see no provision in the Code to regard these two names as available from
> the 1962 source. This style may be common, but it is not in agreement with
> the Code.
>
> Francisco
>
>
>> 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/
>
>
> Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
> Phone +49 551 395536
> http://www.animalbase.org/


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