questions

[Ron at]

Martin Spies wrote re questions:

> Dear Janice, dear listmembers,
>
SNIP
> 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."
>

>From Ron: I would add here the qualification (stipulation) at the end of
23.9 where 23.9.6 states: The deliberate use of a name contrary to Article
23.9.1, or the mentioning of a name in a synonymy, or its mere listing in
an abstracting publication, or in a nomenclator or other index or list of
names must not be taken into account in determining usage under Articles
23.9.1.1 and 23. 9.1.2.
    The clear message here is that the Commission is pointing the
researcher to research based papers and books - something with more
scientific substance than Society/Club check lists, kid's level popular
Field Guides etc. More formal "popular" books would seem to meet the test
(fill the bill).

MORE SNIPS
> 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.
>

Ron: My note above on 23.9.6 shows there are some parameters within which
the occurrences must occur in order to "count".

> 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!).
>

Ron: An example. The 1833 butterfly name ismeria was known only from the
original description and a very poor "cartoonish" painting of the taxon.
This name was often mentioned in books, guides, checklists and formal
papers over the decades. It was however always associated with the species
gorgone and as a rare valid subspecies of it until 1974. In 1974 the noted
butterfly taxonomist the late F. M. Brown published a paper demonstrating
that ismeria was not and could not be a gorgone. His paper was subsequently
ignored by the popular literature which just continued to repeat the
traditional association and assumption that ismeria was a subspecies of
gorgone. In 1989 I rediscovered ismeria at its type locality. These were
the first specimens ever collected of this since its original description.
In 1998 I published on this and demonstrated that ismeria was 1) indeed an
actual entity and subspecific taxon 2) not a gorgone thus confirming
Brown's position and 3) that it was actually a rare subspecies of the
common US butterfly nycteis!  The thing was that ismeria was the older name
than nycteis and ismeria fulfilled all of 23.9.1.2 easily. Thus, priority
kicked in and the combination is now Chlsoyne ismeria nycteis (by the ZN
Code).
    This to me is an excellent example of how simply following a
predecessor(s) without checking their research can lead to a _usage_ or
_prevailing usage_ that is completely out of sync with the reality of
organisms in nature - type specimens and original descriptions.
Nomenclature is not based on usage of epithets but on ORGANISMS. Epithets
are the nomenclature - organisms (types = priority) are what defines
nomenclatorial meanings, existence and interrelated function. We need to
make sure the horse is pulling the cart and not the other way around.
    By the way, in Brown's paper he pinpointed the taxa (name) association
errors to Scudder (late 1880s) - who was simply unquestioningly "followed"
by those after him without ever checking out why he arrived at the (false)
conclusions he did.  Oh yes, and now the "popular" butterfly forces are now
ignoring C. ismeria nycteis just as they did Brown's research. Some want
stability of usage at the expense of science. Some may also have the code
but they sure don't adhear to it.

Ron Gatrelle
The International Lepidoptera Survey
http://tils-ttr.org