Taxacom: =?utf-8?q?Quick_question_RE_availability_of_a_name_in_zo?= =?utf-8?q?ology_=28was=09animal=2C_now_pseudofossil=29?=

[Stephen Thorpe]

 I guess that there is still a potential ambiguity in "names proposed for ..."I guess it should be understood as depending what the thing actually is that the name was proposed for, rather than what the proposer of the name thought it was.Cheers, Stephen
    On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 07:12:56 pm NZDT, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:  
 
  The relevant bit of the Code is:?

1.3.?Exclusions

Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed

1.3.1. for hypothetical concepts;

1.3.2. for teratological specimens as such;

1.3.3. for hybrid specimens as such (for taxa which are of hybrid origin see?Article 17.2);

1.3.4. for infrasubspecific entities unless the name was subsequently deemed to be an available name under?Article 45.6.4.1;

1.3.5. as means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature;

1.3.6. after 1930, for the work of extant animals;


    On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 06:08:09 pm NZDT, Tony Rees via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:  
 
 Hi all,

The answer to this one is probably staring me in the face somewhere but I
cannot see it.

If a genus name is erected in zoology for (in this instance) a supposed
fossil mammal tooth, which subsequently is re-interpreted as a pseudofossil
i.e. non-biological, does the name stand in zoological nomenclature e.g.
for subsequent homonymy? I would have thought yes, however these authors
say no in a 1981 paper:

Hopson, J. A., & Reif, W. E. (1981). The status of Archaeodon reuningi von
Huene, a supposed late Triassic mammal from Southern Africa. *Neues
Jahrbuch f?r Geologie und Pal?ontologie-Monatshefte*, 307-310.

The authors state: [because it represents a non-biological artifact] "the
name Arachaeodon is thus excluded from zoological nomenclature".

One reason that this is potentially relevant is that there is a later
instance of the same name, i.e. Archaeodon Crickmay, 1930, a mollusc,
currently treated as a junior synonym of Cucullaea Lamarck, 1801 however it
would be good to know whether that name is technically available, or
preoccupied.

Thoughts, advice welcome!

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cdba8beb7ef2f40903a9008db028978ca%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638106561721635690%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MdH2ZfuXIg90DoExnFHIpFk7dJDQrc0LNNW931U686k%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cdba8beb7ef2f40903a9008db028978ca%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638106561721635690%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdataj2c%2BEt%2Fex8VKil6D%2F8HYXofaLBwmi9naAHZmnMX6oQ%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023