[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Oct 8 16:32:12 CDT 2014
2014
All this does seem to indicate that the case isn't entirely clear, and so would benefit from an official Opinion from the ICZN
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 9/10/14, David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
To:
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 9 October, 2014, 8:55 AM
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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list