[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Oct 8 18:03:54 CDT 2014


>but if published after 1930, then both names are unavailable<

Really? Why is the species name unavailable??

Stephen

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

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Cc: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia at gmail.com>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Received: Thursday, 9 October, 2014, 10:59 AM
 
 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