[Taxacom] ZooBank Progress

Sun Apr 28 09:20:03 CDT 2013

If it's done manually it might be worth to correct some other names that
were linked by ZooBank to the Linnean 1758 work.

My understanding is that ZooBank is a data resource where available names
are contained. Unavailable names should probably not be contained at all,
and if yes, they should clearly be marked as such.
I am not sure how names should be treated which were initially made
available and later suppressed.

Example:
http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/1E691819-76A8-492D-8AE1-DA84F9103CF8
Acarus telarius Linn?us, 1758 - this name should somehow be marked as
suppressed (ICZN Op. 968).
There were many other such names established in the 1758 work, which were
totally or partly suppressed by the Commission.

--------------

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/9B4AB1FB-B74D-4C5A-8B19-791938C23DCE
Gryllus (Acheta) Linn?us, 1758 - is currently marked as a subgenus. This
is probably incorrect, the name was regarded as unavailable in ICZN Op.
299.
The same problem (name unavailable because of having been mentioned as an
intermediate term between genus and species in the Linnean work) applies
to the following names:

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/D8439D13-60A4-42AB-8380-DFE8042A8883
Papilio (Barbarus) Linn?us, 1758 - ("Barbari", spelled Barbarus in the
running head p. 486).

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/ED6B7AF8-994E-48C6-9346-1C6EF57DC7D5
Gryllus (Bulla) Linn?us, 1758

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/44FD9A4D-FFA4-4BA7-B089-E1D47B41B2FD
Papilio (Danaus) Linn?us, 1758 ("Danai", spelled Danaus in the running
head p. 468)

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/2A09B284-2E77-4BA3-8EBE-870BCAFCC396
Papilio (Equitis) Linn?us, 1758 - ("Equites", spelled Eques in the running
head p. 458) - I do not understand where was written a name Equitis. The
style of the 1758 work suggests that the nominative forms were printed in
the running head.

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/F861B955-F567-4CE2-8312-C991B904BDD6
Papilio (Heliconius) Linn?us, 1758 - ("Heliconii" pp. 458 and 465, spelled
Heliconius in the running head p. 466)

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/92215027-406E-4D65-93D5-A0D85D89D196
Papilio (Nymphalis) Linn?us, 1758 - ("Nymphales" pp. 458 and 472, spelled
Nymphalis in the running head p. 473)

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/4AAB0244-5D62-4421-B2A0-E6AF27FCBA79
Papilio (Plebejus) Linn?us, 1758 - ("Plebeji" pp. 458 and 482, spelled
Plebejus in the running head p. 483)

--------------

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/37067A5C-F3E4-4D35-8B19-1522C2E099EB
Aphis craccae Linn?us, 1758
This name was not made available in the 1758 work because it had no
description or indication as required by Art. 12.1.
The same applies to the following names:

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/6FAADE39-2DF2-4455-88D6-501A8B1528A7
Aphis populi Linn?us, 1758

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/8B802C4D-265E-46D4-BAD2-F50D72740595
Aphis tanaceti Linn?us, 1758

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/8053E764-EC4D-46BA-BA10-ED5053417569
Chermes pyri Linn?us, 1758 - in ZooBank with a dot behind?

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/1AB0206C-0638-401D-B8D7-F65F92222A1E
Chermes salicis Linn?us, 1758

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/D06B3F3A-7F73-4385-B7A7-7398A579098B
Coccus salicis Linn?us, 1758

--------------

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/2DBDB995-5FAF-49FD-8A4E-77F99EE7D267
This name Cardium muricatum from p. 679 was corrected on p. 824, its
correct name should be Cardium aculeatum which should be added to the data
resource. For Cardium aculeatum two page links should be given, p. 679
(the description) and p. 824 (the name).

--------------

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/325F48FA-42B3-4C33-B143-B49D49C2B193
Columbus Linn?us, 1758 - incorrect original spelling of Colymbus Linn?us,
1758 (ICZN Direction 38)
The same problem applies to the following names:

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/82264E98-E333-4CD6-A9B5-C57BD7034E53
Echeneis neucrates Linn?us, 1758 - incorrect original spelling of Echeneis
naucrates Linn?us, 1758 (ICZN Op. 242)

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/6B65557C-5510-467E-8DD9-370308B58B64
Isis ocracea Linn?us, 1758 - incorrect original spelling of Isis ochracea
Linn?us, 1758 (ICZN Op. 1304)

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/D9085174-8D8A-483F-A0ED-FF6A4101E281
Lacerta stincus Linn?us, 1758 - incorrect original spelling of Lacerta
scincus Linn?us, 1758

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/4E4A72A7-D0C7-4FFF-8171-43013A4A1F05
Musca heraclii Linn?us, 1758 - incorrect original spelling of Musca
heraclei Linn?us, 1758 (ICZN Op. 1645)

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/9A3BD368-CA97-4977-B716-0A7F69B2310D
Staphylinus erytropterus Linn?us, 1758 - incorrect original spelling of
Staphylinus erythropterus Linn?us, 1758 (ICZN Op. 546)

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/60215CD1-A0E6-436F-9437-953CEC422E83
Tringa ocrophus Linn?us, 1758 - incorrect original spelling of Tringa
ochropus Linn?us, 1758 (ICZN Direction 17)

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/F844253A-2B6A-4AF6-8458-AC648E4CC29B
Vultur perenopterus Linn?us, 1758 - incorrect original spelling of Vultur
percnopterus Linn?us, 1758 (ICZN Op. 411)

--------------

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/0FE6EBD4-3363-464D-A362-D8AD65C8A0E8
Aranea diadema Linn?us, 1758 - unavailable name: Incorrect subsequent
spelling of Araneus diadematus (Clerck 1757, p. 25) because Linn?us 1758:
619 referred bibliographically to Clerck 1757.

--------------

Maybe some other systematic things could be fixed.

- Remove the long s throughout the original spellings, and replace it at
all instances by the short s. Example Musca Linn?us, 1758, this name was
spelled Musca with long s at some occasions and MUSCA at others, MUSCA is
usually converted to Musca with short s. So all specific names should
correctly be combined with Musca with short s.
Also, the long s is not cited consistently. Example:
http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/D2B4DA70-35AE-4D87-9E34-E219FC8E3DA0
Ostrea Pu&#383;io Linn?us, 1758 - here Pusio with long s and Ostrea with
short s, both had the long s in the original source.

- Consider presenting a field "original spelling" and another field
"correct spelling". This would probably reduce confusion. In the correct
spelling field the species would not appear capitalised, and diacritics
would be removed.

- I am confused by the statement "Fossil: No" in the ZooBank data result set.
Is this nomenclaturally relevant?
Is there an exact definition for the term "fossil"? Since when does a
taxon need to be extinct for obtaining the attribute "fossil"?
Can we be sure that all molluscs and brachiopods named in the early
Linnean works were recent?
Would it not be better to remove the statement, to avoid running the risk
to give an incorrect information?
Example:
http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/04B5D5F4-648A-489F-ADE9-2C13971F8A69
Anomia Gryphus Linn?us, 1758. Here a fossil species was described, and in
Zoobank it was marked as "Fossil: No".

Best wishes
Francisco

Francisco Welter-Schultes
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
Phone +49 551 395536
http://www.animalbase.org