[Taxacom] Names missing from Neave/Nomenclator Zoologicus - any case studies?
tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 5 17:37:11 CDT 2016
Thanks, Neal. A good suggestion re Eschmeyer for the fish - since I have
the raw data here I have just done a quick comparison - for names published
to 2003 (approx. cutoff point for Neave) that I have flagged as either
"extant only" or "extant +fossil":
- Nomenclator Zoologicus: 10,934 names (genera + subgenera)
- Eschmeyer total: (genera only): 10,637
- Nomenclator Zoologicus + Eschmeyer (common to both): 9,682 genus names (I
am presuming the ones in in Nom. Zool. but not in Eschmeyer are either
subgenera only, incorrectly flagged, or superfluous entries in Nom. Zool.
e.g. nomina nuda and misspellings not of interest to Eschmeyer)
- Eschmeyer alone (not in Nom. Zool.): 955 genus names
To see if these are mainly newer ones missing from Nom. Zool. for reasons
of latency, I checked the latest years of the last total but they are not
the most numerous (2003: 5 names, 2002: 2 names, 2001: 15 names).
So this would suggest that Nomenclator Zoologicus has missed 955/10,637
published genus names (by Eschmeyer's criteria) over this period or just a
fraction under 9%.
(I have not checked to see if any of the Eschmeyer names are pre-Linnean
and therefore out of scope for Nom. Zool. but should probably do so - if
found I will adjust the totals acordingly.)
Thanks for the suggestion, and probably a good test to do, since
Eschmeyer's Catalog is very thorough I would think.
Regards - Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
On 6 October 2016 at 07:11, Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> You might try Eschmeyer for fish.
> Caveat on Neave: the list is essentially an aggregator and it is not known
> how much vetting was done. Before adding the nanmes recorded in Zoological
> Record, the majority of names were taken from previous nomenclators
> (Agassiz, Marschall, Poche, Scudder, Sherborn, Waterhouse) and thus errors
> in them persist. As for missing names in Neave, when Neave grabbed names
> from Sherborn, he did not know that Sherborn did not list names that were
> made available on plates — Sherborn was under the contemporary impression
> that names had to have a description to be available; nor did he list new
> genera that had no description but had a taxonomically valid species
> included (the ICZN Code, of course, has since allowed these names). To
> confound, Neave lists some names as available when they are simply
> subsequent usages of a name by another author and in cases where a name is
> equivocal as to its availability as an emendation, he appends them with
> (“pro” X-us). On the latter, checking each “pro” shows that some are
> indeed available, while others are misspellings.
> We’re working on the Diptera ~20,000 names takes a bit of time to vet
> properly, but we’ve found both names missed and names mis-attributed in
> Neave. Sorry — no complete list of those missing though since we’re not
> through examining all of them ...
More information about the Taxacom