[Taxacom] "Bos domesticus" issue

[Michael A. Ivie]

Hi Doug,

We used this in my Biosystematics Class today, and we conclude a 
replacement name for this is contrary to the goal of Stability. Two 
better options than a replacement name name are available: First, search 
for prevailing usage under 23.9.1. There should be 25 uses of a bovid 
name in the last 50 years if you search everywhere.  The Code does not 
say the species epithet has to be used in this combination in all those 
uses, right?  So, uses in Bibos would count.

If not, there is 81.2.1. If two names are homonyms the older homonym may 
be "totally suppressed", i.e. suppressed for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy so that the later 
homonym may continue in use as a valid name.

Thanks for the exercise.

Mike and the class

On 10/14/2021 12:50 PM, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom wrote:
> Hi, all. It came to my attention today that there is a dispute over 
> the taxonomy of the "Bali cattle" (a type of banteng), as to whether 
> it should be "Bos domesticus" or "Bos javanicus domesticus". My 
> initial thought was "Wait - could *either* of these really be correct? 
> Surely that name must have been used for regular cattle and not the 
> banteng."
>
> In trying to sort this out, I've consulted Wilson & Reeder's 
> definitive work, "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and 
> Geographic Reference, Volume 1" (see pp. 691-692). There are several 
> authorities that have published the species (or subspecies) epithet 
> domesticus and it was either originally placed in the genus Bos or 
> moved there later. The oldest such citation I can find listed is 
> Erxleben, 1777 (there is also domesticus Fitzinger, 1860 as well). The 
> point is this: Bos domesticus Wilckens, 1905 (used for the banteng) 
> surely cannot be a valid name under the ICZN because the name would be 
> a junior homonym of Bos domesticus Erxleben, 1777. This is an entirely 
> different question from whether or not it is a species or a 
> subspecies. Regardless of its taxonomic status, it cannot be named 
> "domesticus", unless the genus it was placed in formerly, Bibos, is 
> restored as a valid genus. Evidently, that is why no one had 
> recognized or addressed this problem; it didn't become a problem until 
> Bibos was placed as a subgenus of Bos, which means that Wilckens' name 
> requires a replacement.
>
> But, I don't dabble in mammal taxonomy, so even though what I find 
> Googling doesn't suggest anyone knows about the problem, I'm curious 
> as to whether this IS known, and someone is doing (or has done) 
> something about it.
>
> Peace,
>
-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
PO Box 173145
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA


(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu