[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Thomas Pape tpape at snm.ku.dk
Tue Oct 7 02:42:55 CDT 2014

I agree with Laurent.
I have given Article 13.4 some thought recently, and I do not think this Article is equivocal.

Note the expression "combined description". This can only be taken to mean a description where both taxa together (i.e., the nominal genus and the nominal species) are described using the same description.
A combined description of a new genus and an already named species will not confer availability to the genus-group name. A new genus without description including a single new species with a description will not confer availability to the genus-group name.

The "strict" interpretation is the only interpretation.


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Laurent Raty
Sent: 7. oktober 2014 09:35
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem


I don't really get how you reach your "loose" interpretation.
As I see it, Article 13.4 describes the case of a combined description of ONE NEW genus-group taxon and ONE NEW species-group taxon (French: 
"Description couplée d'UN NOUVEAU taxon du niveau genre et d'UNE NOUVELLE espèce"): the species must always be new. Such a description is deemed to confer availability on each name IF it (the description, not the species!) is "marked by "gen. nov., sp. nov." or an equivalent
expression": this condition must always be fulfilled.
Where the article is a bit ambiguous, though, is in that it might be interpreted
- in a strict way, as requiring that only one species is included in the genus (=the "included new nominal species" must be "single") AND the description is tagged as a combined description, or
- in a looser way, as requiring that only ONE OF THE species included in the genus has its description tagged as a combined description (="the combined description" must be of a single included new nominal species).
This ambiguity exists also in the French text. Either way, the tag is always required, though.

That said I agree that the case "may not be that simple."

In the 1956 paper, the description of the new species is marked "Acanthinozodium sericeum sp. nov.", which clearly does not fulfill Article 13.4. If one wants the genus-group name to be available from this work, one has to assume that availability is confered by reference to Denis (1952), which includes a few descriptive words. A reference to Denis (1952) appears in this work, but only once, 8 pages before the introduction of the new species, and in a different context (the paper is said to introduce 6 spp and 1 ssp new for Morocco, the new genus is not cited there at all). Thus, whether this reference really "accompagnies" the new genus seems rather questionable.

Laurent -

On 10/07/2014 05:43 AM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Unfortunately, it may not be that simple! The relevant article of the Code is equivocal between 2 interpretations:
> 13.4. Combined description of new genus-group taxon and new species. 
> The combined description or definition of a new nominal genus or 
> subgenus and a single included new nominal species, if marked by "gen. 
> nov., sp. nov." or an equivalent expression, is deemed to confer 
> availability on each name under Article 13.1.1
> Interpretation 1 (loose): If only a single species is included 
> (whether new or not), then it is type species and the genus is 
> available; but if more than one species, then if one and only one new 
> species is marked by "gen. nov., sp. nov." or an equivalent 
> expression, then it is the type species and the genus is available;
> Example: Aus bus Smith is redescribed as Cus bus (Smith), with no separate description for Cus (which was previously unavailable), and Cus is not tagged as new. This would make Cus available with type species Aus bus Smith. Won't work after 1999...
> Interpretation 1 (strict): One and only one species (must be a new species) must be included and marked by "gen. nov., sp. nov." or an equivalent expression.
> So, it all hangs on whether Acanthinozodium needs to be tagged as new in Denis, 1956???
> Stephen
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 7/10/14, JOCQUE Rudy <rudy.jocque at africamuseum.be> wrote:
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
>   To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>   Received: Tuesday, 7 October, 2014, 6:47 AM
>   Many thanks for the
>   comments.
>   The outcome is
>   apparently as follows:
>   Acanthinozodium is available and valid. Its
>   type species is A. sericeum Denis, 1956.
>   Before the intended type species A. spinulosum
>   was described by Denis, 1966, no other authors used the
>   name. Denis published three other papers with
>   Acanthinozodium in it  before that (1953, 1956 and 1959).
>   The first one contained two species and one subspecies of
>   the genus, the second only one: A. sericeum, the third one
>   three. A. sericeum thus becomes the type species by monotypy
>   and combined description. This is very convenient as that
>   species is known from both sexes and its types have been
>   traced whereas those of A. spinulosum, only known from
>   females, could not be found and are probably lost.
>   Ciao,
>   Rudy
>   Rudy
>   Department of Zoology
>   Royal Museum for Central Africa
>   Leuvense steenweg 13
>   B-3080
>   Tervuren
>   Belgium
>   Tel x 32 2
>   7695410

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list