[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Oct 8 17:44:33 CDT 2014
2014
Article 13.4 is still somewhat unclear when there is only one new species (and no other included species). There does seem to be a link here with Art. 68.2.1, in that both articles appear to be explicitly talking about cases where there is more than one new species included, and the "n.g., n.sp." is used to single out the relevant one, but if there is only one, then it is obviously the type species (in the case of Art. 68.2.1), and so obviously a combined genus/species description (in the case of Art. 13.4), particularly since pre-2000 new names don't have to be tagged as new. The question is whether or not we can assume the obvious! Consider this: what would you make of a really old description, headed simply Aus bus (name never used before), followed by a description of the species? Could this not be a combined new genus/species description without any tags? For a pre-1931 name, it could be (Art. 12.2.6). For a 1930-1999 name, I'm not sure...
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 9/10/14, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
To: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia at gmail.com>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 9 October, 2014, 10:19 AM
David: You are missing that the
name Acanthinozodium is NOT made available in the first
paper (i.e., from 1952), which means that the name does not
exist yet as a scientific name. So, nothing in the
1952-paper can prevent a later paper from providing a type
by any means of fixation (or prevent any other nomenclatural
act).
Your "other complication" confuses the issues of type
species fixation and availability through a combined
description. The expression "Gen. n., sp. n." (or similar)
cannot be taken as a type designation after 1930.
As for your "arcane question", the answer is "by monotypy".
Note that Article 68.2.1 explicitly targets situations where
the "gen. n., sp. n." or equivalent is applied to only one
of two or more new nominal species. From this follows that
when the "gen. n., sp. n." or equivalent is applied to a
single included species, this expression is not an original
designation.
/Thomas Pape
-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: 8. oktober 2014 22:55
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
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.
_______________________________________________
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