[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Oct 8 16:32:12 CDT 2014


All this does seem to indicate that the case isn't entirely clear, and so would benefit from an official Opinion from the ICZN

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 9/10/14, David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
 To: 
 Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Thursday, 9 October, 2014, 8:55 AM
 
 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
 _______________________________________________
 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.
 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list