questions

[Spies, Martin]

Dear Janice, dear listmembers,

believing that there are more people on the list with an
interest in this than will ever become active with contributions
of their own, I'm replying to the list as well.

The relevant ICZN 4 (1999) glossary entry reads:
"usage, prevailing. n.[= noun] Of a name: that usage of the name which
is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors
concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago
their work was published."

Article 23.9.1. (to be understood within the specific Article 23.9.
Reversal of precedence !) reads:
"prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions
are both met:
23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a
valid name after 1899, and
23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a
particular taxon, as its presumed valid name in at least 25 works,
published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding
50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years."

I'm not sure that the latter Article applies at all to your
problem, Janice.

Generally, though, if you're going to be active in basic
taxonomy and nomenclature like this, you SHOULD consider
getting a copy of the Code somehow, or at least find a colleague
or library close by that has one. It's definitely a good idea
to know what's in the Code before you publish on any taxonomic
action or problem.

On your specific questions, it seems to me that only the last one
can be answered 'scientifically', that is with a reasonably high
probability that somebody else will answer it the same way:
Yes, the relegation of the species name in your case to
subspecies status is probably correct, as the zoological Code
does not interfere with such interpretations of taxonomic level
as long as all other formalities are correctly handled.
Vice versa that means that you are not in any way bound
to follow an earlier author's opinion, if you have evidence
that the taxon is a separate species (not a subspecies) after all.

Regarding your first four questions, however, I'm afraid they
cannot be answered just like that. In fact, they seem to be
good examples for why, in my view of taxonomic practice,
"prevailing usage" is the wrong way to go. Put a number of
colleagues on this case of yours, and have them use the above
Code sections (and any other relevant ones) to come up with
a solution: what do you think the chances are you will get
a stable solution that is the nearly unanimous result of your
test experts AND can be independently reproduced by others?

And why should we even have to go through all this trouble
of finding as many of the publications containing the name
as possible (finding all of them is practically impossible
for any taxonomist who does not have a very well-stacked
library next door), EVERY TIME we come up on such a
problem? It was exactly to put an end to this entirely
unworkable situation that the predecessors of the current
nomenclature Commission had the good sense to install
a far better solution:

My suggestion would be to go back to the type series
of the taxa playing into your case. If you cannot
examine the type material yourself: are any of the
papers treating the name(s) in your problem based on
detailed examinations of the type series? If so, I think
such papers are much more informative than others who
are speculating or just repeating quoted data without
direct evidence. Simply counting occurrences of names
obviously results in a less scientific estimate, especially
when the rules don't allow you to determine exactly
which occurrences to count and which not to.

Well-chosen, well-curated and thoroughly examined
type material remains the best possible foundation for stable
taxonomy and nomenclature. If such type material does not
currently exist, it may be newly established (see the Code
rules on that!).

Taxonomy is a human expert system, and there is nothing wrong
with that. Within such a system, questions are best answered
not by popular vote, but by expert analysis provided that the
experts present the definitions and steps through which they
arrived at their solutions.

The "prevailing usage" way may appear to promise short-term
stability (=rigidity), but isn't it worth thinking twice about
what Chris Thompson recently reported to us from the pre-fourth
edition sessions of the Commission on this matter? Chris wrote:
>> I did argue ... we should have changed the "principle of priority"
to that of "usage", however, the conservatives overruled me. <<
Why would conservatives (a term that shouldn't carry negative
connotations in an historic discipline such as taxonomy)
be against something that claims to further stability in
nomenclature? Couldn't it be that there are higher principles
and a more meaningful concept of stability to be upheld than
the "prevailing usage" visible from our small window in time?

Sincerely,

--
Martin Spies
Schraemelstr. 151
D-81247 Muenchen
Germany

Tel. (ZSM): +49 89 8107-153
Fax (ZSM): +49 89 8107-300

E-mail: spies at zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: spies.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 157 bytes
Desc: Visitenkarte f?r Spies, Martin
Url : http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/attachments/20010827/60415cd9/attachment.vcf