[Taxacom] availability and type locality
fabiocrocetta at alice.it
Fri Oct 18 06:32:55 CDT 2013
Thanks to everybody :-)
From: Francisco Welter-Schultes
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 1:16 PM
To: Fabio Crocetta
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] availability and type locality
in addition to what Gary wrote (I agree entirely with it): you also asked
indirectly also about the correct authorship of the name:
> the correct name should be Genus species XY in ABC
No, not necessarily. The correct name and authorship must be derived from
the publication in which the name was made available (ABC's paper), not
from the publication where the name was mentioned as a nomen nudum (XY's
So in your case it would be correct as Genus species ABC, if no other
authorship was indicated in ABC's paper.
If another authorship was indicated in ABC's paper, then you must pay
attention and follow strictly the rules of Art. 50.1 and 50.1.1. These
rules are not easy to understand. Basically you can have two cases.
I assume for a first case that A, B, C, X and Y stand for 5 different
If Genus species was presented in ABC's paper without authorship, then ABC
gets the authorship by default.
If X & Y was indicated as the authorship in ABC's paper (in a form Genus
species X & Y n. sp.), then Art. 50.1.1 applies: you have to look for who
was expressly indicated as having been responsible for the description. If
ABC said that X and Y were ALONE responsible for the description, then X &
Y get the authorship, and you can cite it as Genus species XY in ABC. Very
important is "alone".
If there is no such indication in ABC's paper, or if the context suggests
that X and Y were not alone responsible for the description (because ABC
gave some additional information that contributed to the description, no
matter how significant or important this contribution was), then ABC get
the authorship alone, and X & Y are not included to the authorship.
If X and Y are identical with B and C (second case), and the name is cited
in ABC's paper in a form Genus species B & C n. sp., then Art. 50.1
applies and it is not necessary to look for who was responsible for the
description. This is because B and C were co-authors of ABC's work. In
such a case the new name is cited as Genus species BC in ABC.
Very complicate rules, but, well. I hope this helps in this detail of your
> Dear taxacomers,
> I have a doubt that presumably most of you can easily solve. When a
> binomial name is nomen nudum in a paper by the author XY, who worked with
> material in Italy, but then is made available by a subsequent author
> (ABC), who worked with material from Spain...
> the correct name should be Genus species XY in ABC, and the correct type
> locality will be the original one (that of the nomen nudum â€“ Italy) or
> that of the subsequent author who made it available (Spain)? It looks like
> it should be â€œSpainâ€ because the original binomial name, being nomen
> nudum, formally do not exist. But...is there an unknown (to me) rule of
> the CODE that says that?
> Thanks in advance
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive 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
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
Phone +49 551 395536
More information about the Taxacom