[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

David Campbell pleuronaia at gmail.com
Wed Oct 8 15:55:28 CDT 2014


As another complication, Article 68.2.1 says that "Gen. n., sp. n." is
valid if used before 1931, whereas 13.4 would indicate that option as
ongoing.  68.2.1 also says that this should be applied to only one of two
or more included taxa, a phrasing that raises the very arcane question as
to whether, if only one species is included and the "Gen. n., sp. n."
phrasing is present, this would be a type by original designation or by
monotypy.

As to the spider, I would think that the mention of two species in the
first paper would prevent a later paper from providing a type by monotypy,
unless that paper explicitly claimed to be validating the genus.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:

> 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.
>
> /Thomas
>
> -----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
>
> Stephen,
>
> 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
> >   JOCQUÉ
> >   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
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>



-- 
Dr. David Campbell
Assistant Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
Box 7270
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017



More information about the Taxacom mailing list