Taxacom: Article 70.3

[kotatsu at fripost.org]

Hi all,

I have a question about Article 70.3.

Timeline:
- Nitzsch (1818) published the name "Philopterus (Nirmus) cameratus", 
but this is a nomen nudum.
- De Haan (1829) [= published version of Lyonet's unpublished 
manuscript, sometimes referred to by Lyonet's name] used this name, 
attributing it to Nitzsch, and published an illustration, making the 
name available.
- Burmeister (1838) studied Nitzsch's specimens and manuscript, and 
published a text description of P. (N.) cameratus.
- Giebel (1874) redescribed Nitzsch's original specimens again, 
attributing the name to Nitzsch.
- Waterston (1922) described the genus Lagopoecus, with the type species 
P. (N.) cameratus Lyonet.
- Clay (1938) determined that cameratus sensu De Haan/Lyonet and 
cameratus sensu Nitzsch/Burmeister/Giebel represent two different 
genera: Lagopoecus and Gallipeurus [a synonym of Cuclotogaster]. The 
specimens Waterston examined were cameratus sensu Burmeister, not 
cameratus sensu De Haan. Clay established the nomen novum Lagopoecus 
lyrurus for P. (N.) cameratus Burmeister, and corrected the type species 
of Lagopoecus to L. lyrurus. Clay is the first revisor of both 
Cuclotogaster and Lagopoecus, if that makes any difference.
- This classification has been accepted ever since. There is also no 
doubt that Lagopoecus and Cuclotogaster, as currently understood, 
represent different genera, and that the two cameratus-species (whatever 
they are named) are in the correct genus today.

Clay implicitly used Article 70.3.2 as the basis for her decisions. 
However, this Article states that "If the latter choice is made, the 
author must refer to this Article and cite together both the name 
previously cited as type species and the name of the species selected." 
Clay did not refer to Article 70.3.2 in her paper, but she did fulfill 
the second half of the requirement.

Was the first half of this requirement in effect in 1938? And, if it was 
not, does this matter? I've been trying to find PDFs of old versions of 
the Code, but so far I haven't found any (so another question would be: 
are they available online somewhere where I couldn't find them)?

Furthermore, if Clay's actions were incorrect because she should have 
cited 70.3.2 but didn't, does this require some action today, to stave 
off any future problems, or is the fact that this classification has 
been used without controversy for almost 100 years enough?

(all publications can be found here, if necessary: 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphthiraptera.myspecies.info%2Fbiblio&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C0ecb096676724e1b357908db5b53a53a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638204187079438414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5bNHtau3yjeEN%2FBhjOe63sgHkr82onshAg5LAq5GgtE%3D&reserved=0)

Best wishes,
Daniel


-- 
Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.

Ask me about chewing lice!