[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Thomas Pape tpape at snm.ku.dk
Wed Oct 8 17:19:16 CDT 2014


David:  You are missing that the name Acanthinozodium is NOT made available in the first paper (i.e., from 1952), which means that the name does not exist yet as a scientific name. So, nothing in the 1952-paper can prevent a later paper from providing a type by any means of fixation (or prevent any other nomenclatural act).

Your "other complication" confuses the issues of type species fixation and availability through a combined description. The expression "Gen. n., sp. n." (or similar) cannot be taken as a type designation after 1930.

As for your "arcane question", the answer is "by monotypy". Note that Article 68.2.1 explicitly targets situations where the "gen. n., sp. n." or equivalent is applied to only one of two or more new nominal species. From this follows that when the "gen. n., sp. n." or equivalent is applied to a single included species, this expression is not an original designation.

/Thomas Pape



-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: 8. oktober 2014 22:55
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

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