Taxacom: [KU SUSPECT SPAM] Re: Article 70.3

Tue May 23 08:02:56 CDT 2023

In addition: Edition 1 to 3 of the zoological Code
also had this Art. 70 but this required an author to
refer the matter to the Commission. Referring to
Art. 70 (or Art. 70.3? Is this unambiguously clear?)
in the sense now required has been possible only
(except for clairvoyants) since Edition 4 has been
published.

Paul

On 23-May-23 13:56, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
> 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 - De Haan (1829) [= published version of Lyonet's unpublished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%7Ca7758c5bf3344db22cbc08db5b8e08e7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638204437839561407%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BtN5P4h6XsRk0gI8SSEtGSnWYhvOwk0iM3E66762V7Q%3D&reserved=0)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Daniel
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca7758c5bf3344db22cbc08db5b8e08e7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638204437839561407%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jBJWrxRnwgEfMao1KvvxnkC5XIHAIw2Y%2BP3mJRpSSXA%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration 
> for about 36 years, 1987-2023.

-- 
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%7Ca7758c5bf3344db22cbc08db5b8e08e7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638204437839561407%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TkNRHwKDefFT038eQm%2Bw%2B3qecidv9M83JklVBTdurN8%3D&reserved=0