Taxacom: Article 70.3

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Daniel,

The nomenclaturally approach would be slightly different as to authors, 
but in any case, yes, an act that did not cite Art. 70.3 is not valid 
under the Code. Previous regulations, which might have been effective in 
1938, and which are not reinforced in Code-4, have no effect.

Thank you for providing the literature access web page. However I have 
little time and I would prefer being able to click on the concerned 
publications "directly". It takes time to search them in a data resource.

 > - De Haan (1829) [= published version of Lyonet's unpublished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.

In such a case the name was attributed to Nitzsch, the illustration was 
provided by De Haan, this did satisfy the criteria of availability, so 
under Art. 50.1.1 the authorship is to be attributed to De Hann.
The type specimen(s) are the ones De Haan had when establishing this 
name, in particular the illustrated specimen(s).

 > - Burmeister (1838) studied Nitzsch's specimens and manuscript, and
 > published a text description of P. (N.) cameratus.

Subsequent usage, not nomenclaturally relevant.

 > - Giebel (1874) redescribed Nitzsch's original specimens again,
 > attributing the name to Nitzsch.

Subsequent usage, not nomenclaturally relevant.

 > - Waterston (1922) described the genus Lagopoecus, with the type species
 > P. (N.) cameratus Lyonet.

Type P. cameratus De Haan fixed by this action.

 > - 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.

At least Clay suggested that these were two different species. This 
situation can justify an action under Art. 70.3.

Clay established the nomen novum Lagopoecus
 > lyrurus for P. (N.) cameratus Burmeister, and corrected the type species
 > of Lagopoecus to L. lyrurus.

She proposed a correction of the type species.
Clay cannot have established a new replacement name (nomen novum) to 
replace for P. cameratus sensu Burmeister, not De Haan, because P. 
cameratus sensu Burmeister was not an available name. Only available 
names can be replaced by new replacement names.
This is a very frequent source of mistake, and needs a reconsideration: 
Either Clay provided a description for L. lyurus that she called a nomen 
novum, or she gave a bibliographic reference to a previously published 
description (citing Burmeister's name alone would not have represented 
such a bibliographic reference) - in those cases Clay's name would have 
been made available as a normal new taxon name, with its own types, i.e. 
Clay's specimens and the ones to which she referred by bibliographic 
reference.
In many cases such a condition is present and the name can be saved for 
being used in nomenclature.
With bad luck the name was not made available by Clay, then it is 
necessary to look for the next author to have made this name available 
by mentioning it somewhere with a short description.
With very bad luck this may also fail, and another subsequently 
established synonym or subspecies would have precedence.


 > Clay is the first revisor of both
 > Cuclotogaster and Lagopoecus, if that makes any difference.

Probably not. I wonder if deliberate employment of misidentification 
comes into play, but it would be useful to know the authorships and 
dates of the genera.

It would be admissible to publish an act under Art. 70.3 and refer to 
Clay's 1938 publication, to substantiate the statement that the type 
species was misidentified in 1922, with a statement that her judgment is 
still up to date.
As said above, caution with the name to be used for the species actually 
involved in the misidentification.

If this helps

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 23.05.2023 um 08:04 schrieb Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom:
> 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%7C6d0139bebb0749ec48de08db5b84bc11%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638204397901278758%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kiBsbhoMu5qGYTmIaffcvWMHV%2FbfswCKjzdwv69eMDM%3D&reserved=0)
> 
> Best wishes,
> Daniel
> 
>