[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Thomas Pape tpape at snm.ku.dk
Wed Oct 8 17:59:44 CDT 2014


Stephen:

Article 13.4 says: "The combined description or definition of a new nominal genus or subgenus and a SINGLE included new nominal species" (my emphasis). With only a single included species all the cases where there are two or more included species will be excluded. Note that the "n.g., n.sp." is not used to single out the relevant species-group name as there is only one name.

So, what would I make of a really old description, headed simply Aus bus (name never used before), followed by a description of the species?

The Code is clear: If the description is published before 1931, then both names are available -- but if published after 1930, then both names are unavailable.
A "combined description" will ONLY confer availability to a post-1930 genus-group name "if marked by "gen. nov., sp. nov." or an equivalent expression".

/Thomas Pape


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: 9. oktober 2014 00:45
To: David Campbell; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Thomas Pape
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Article 13.4 is still somewhat unclear when there is only one new species (and no other included species). There does seem to be a link here with Art. 68.2.1, in that both articles appear to be explicitly talking about cases where there is more than one new species included, and the "n.g., n.sp." is used to single out the relevant one, but if there is only one, then it is obviously the type species (in the case of Art. 68.2.1), and so obviously a combined genus/species description (in the case of Art. 13.4), particularly since pre-2000 new names don't have to be tagged as new. The question is whether or not we can assume the obvious! Consider this: what would you make of a really old description, headed simply Aus bus (name never used before), followed by a description of the species? Could this not be a combined new genus/species description without any tags? For a pre-1931 name, it could be (Art. 12.2.6). For a 1930-1999 name, I'm not sure...

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 9/10/14, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
 To: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia at gmail.com>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Thursday, 9 October, 2014, 10:19 AM
 
 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.
 _______________________________________________
 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