[Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Oct 8 18:03:54 CDT 2014
2014
>but if published after 1930, then both names are unavailable<
Really? Why is the species name unavailable??
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 9/10/14, Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Nomenclatorial problem
To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Cc: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia at gmail.com>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Received: Thursday, 9 October, 2014, 10:59 AM
Stephen:
Article 13.4 says: "The
combined description or definition of a new nominal genus or
subgenus and a SINGLE included new nominal species" (my
emphasis). With only a single included species all the cases
where there are two or more included species will be
excluded. Note that the "n.g., n.sp." is not used
to single out the relevant species-group name as there is
only one name.
So, what
would I make of a really old description, headed simply Aus
bus (name never used before), followed by a description of
the species?
The Code is
clear: If the description is published before 1931, then
both names are available -- but if published after 1930,
then both names are unavailable.
A
"combined description" will ONLY confer
availability to a post-1930 genus-group name "if marked
by "gen. nov., sp. nov." or an equivalent
expression".
/Thomas
Pape
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: 9. oktober 2014 00:45
To: David Campbell; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
Thomas Pape
Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
Nomenclatorial problem
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