Taxacom: Article 70.3

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

FWIW: what was in force then is here:

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F34550543&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2de395f8362b4ef7716008db5b841f6f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638204395259810943%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QfWL2%2FCWBmQf%2BYkg7KNPjf7e2rjYvxkJekI2HoRXFwk%3D&reserved=0 
<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F34550543&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2de395f8362b4ef7716008db5b841f6f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638204395259810943%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QfWL2%2FCWBmQf%2BYkg7KNPjf7e2rjYvxkJekI2HoRXFwk%3D&reserved=0>

except Article 25 which had been expanded
by then.

Paul




On 23-May-23 08:04, Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom wrote:
> 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 - De Haan (1829) [= published version of Lyonet's unpublished 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%7C2de395f8362b4ef7716008db5b841f6f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638204395259810943%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xMD%2Fhnh%2BtT6NxrpGWqT9WGa33s2tiykOxfCfNF2yUDQ%3D&reserved=0)
>
> Best wishes,
> Daniel
>
>


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2de395f8362b4ef7716008db5b841f6f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638204395259810943%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E38VURYdVH1udhWJvRa%2FAZeO90r%2FgfK9kubOA9vBTfc%3D&reserved=0