Taxacom: Subsequent type species designation

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Daniel,

My interpretation seems to differ slightly from how Thomas judged this 
interesting case.

Philopterus (Goniodes) falcicornis was made available by indication, 
because two bibliographic references were provided, satisfying Art. 12.2.1.
Redi, Exper. tab. XIV. referred unambiguously to Redi 1671: Tab. XIV (= 
14).
The reference to Panzer was also unambiguously bibliographic in nature. 
These two references made the name available.
The reference "Pedic. Pavoonis, Linn. Fabr." was not bibliographic in 
nature, this was only a synonym, not satisfying a criterion unter Art. 
12.1 (indications) and had no influence to the availability of Ph. 
falcicornis, the name used by Nitzsch. This was just a synonym, nothing 
more.

Type species:
Johnston & Harrison 1911: 326 (I did not check this source and rely on 
what was reported, in particular I rely on the cited text in quotation 
marks: "G. pavonis L. (syn. G. falcicornis N.)") designated Pediculus 
pavonis Linnaeus, 1758 as type. The fact that these authors cited G. 
falcicornis as a synonym has no influence. The designation referred to 
pavonis.
For the originally included nominal species Art. 67.2 is decisive, in 
this case Art. 67.2.1.

67.2.1. In the meaning of the Code the "originally included nominal 
species" comprise only those included in the newly established nominal 
genus or subgenus, having been cited in the original publication by an 
available name (including citation by an incorrect spelling [Art. 67.6]) 
of a species or subspecies (see Articles 45.6 and 68.2), or having been 
cited there as the deliberate application of a previous 
misidentification (see Articles 11.10, 67.13 and 69.2.4).

So, nominal species must be included, and Nitzsch must have cited these 
"nominal species" by an available name of a species or subspecies.

Glossary:
"originally included nominal species, n. Of a nominal genus-group taxon: 
the nominal species deemed to be originally included under Article 67.2."

"nominal taxon. A concept of a taxon which is denoted by an available 
name (e.g. Mollusca, Diptera, Bovidae, Papilio, Homo sapiens). Each 
nominal taxon in the family, genus or species groups is based on a 
name-bearing type (although in the latter two groups such a type may not 
have been actually fixed)."

The trick is that a "nominal species" (actually this should read 
"nominal species-group taxon", because in rare cases also names 
established as nominal subspecies would count) is a concept of a taxon 
denoted by a name.
This is what must have been cited by Nitzsch. And this means, also 
nominal species cited as synonyms count (actually these could be names 
of species and of subspecies, in this case it was a name of a species 
established by Linnaeus 1758). The synonym Pediculus pavonis Linnaeus, 
1758 was an available name, had its own name-bearing type and was 
included by Nitzsch in the new subgenus. Art. 67.2.1 does neither state 
nor imply that only names used as valid by Nitzsch would count.

In other words: In those cases where a new genus-group taxon was 
established and included various species (in the classification of that 
author), the synonyms do count.

In Art. 68.3 (type species by monotypy) the Code expressly excludes the 
names cited as synonyms, which is necessary because the monotypy 
regulation would otherwise contradict the definition of originally 
included nominal species in Art. 67.2.1, and monotypy could not apply if 
a synonym was mentioned.

Art. 69.2.2 refers to slightly different cases: This would apply if 
Nitzsch would not have cited Ped. pavonis, and Johnston & Harrison 1911 
would have designated P. pavonis as type and stated that they regarded 
this as a synonym of Ph. falcicornis. In this case Ph. falcicornis would 
be the type under Art. 69.2.2.

But since Nitzsch 1818: 293 included Ped. pavonis (as an expressly cited 
synonym), the designation of Ped. pavonis as type stands immediately 
under Art. 69.1, Ped. pavonis having been among the "originally included 
nominal species" under Art. 67.2.1.

And this means that the traditionally accepted type species P. pavonis 
is in line with the Code.

This part of the Code is very confusing and we are going to propose a 
modified wording of these regulations that will make it easier to 
understand. If monotypy applies, synonyms do not count, in all other 
modes of type designations synonyms do count.

If I have not overlooked something decisive.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 30.04.2025 um 10:17 schrieb Thomas Pape via Taxacom:
> Dear Daniel,
> 
> The correct link to Nitzsch (1818) is this one: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fitem%2F81951%23page%2F305%2Fmode%2F1up&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca9feed068d934933027a08dd8804c598%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638816276275472515%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eqnNpe7FNlgymTIuVBFiE6AmQgT4plEWEY0J%2BcIdcDc%3D&reserved=0
> Here, Nitzsch (1818: 293) published the genus-group name Goniodes (given rank as a subgenus) and with more than one species listed.
> 
> The first name listed under Goniodes is "Phil. falcicornis" [i.e., Philopterus (Goniodes) falcicornis].
> I would not classify this as a nomen nudum. Nitzsch referred to "Pedic. Pavonis, Linn. Fabr." and cited descriptions also by Redi and Panzer. In my opinion this would amount to an indication as defined by the Code Glossary: "A reference to previously published information".
> Also, even if Nitzsch refers to Linnaeus' (1758) original description of Pediculus pavonis, the new name Philopterus (Goniodes) falcicornis is not "treated as a junior synonym of a name then used as valid" (Art. 11.6) but as a valid name in its own right.
> 
> Johnston & Harrison (1911: 326) designated "G. pavonis L. (syn. G. falcicornis N.)" as the type species of Goniodes. As I interpret G. falcicornis as an available name, Art. 69.2.2 comes into play: "If an author designates as type species a nominal species that was not originally included (or accepts another's such designation) and if, but only if, at the same time he or she places that nominal species in synonymy with one and only one of the originally included species (as defined in Article 67.2), that act constitutes fixation of the latter species as type species of the nominal genus or subgenus".
> 
> /Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom
> Sent: 30. april 2025 05:03
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Taxacom: Subsequent type species designation
> 
> I want to make sure I understand the code with regards to subsequent type species designation in a particular case in ischnoceran chewing lice.
> 
> Nitzsch (1818: 293) published the genus name Goniodes (as a subgenus), but did not designate a type species. The first species he listed under Goniodes was "Goniodes falcicornis", a nomen nudum. However, he placed the available name Pediculus pavonis Linnaeus, 1758, as a synonym of this name.
> 
> Johnston & Harrison (1911: 326) designated "G. pavonis L. (syn. G.
> falcicornis N.)" as the type species of Goniodes. This has been universally accepted since then, and G. pavonis is the name used to this date.
> 
> As I understand Article 67.2, the fact that Nitzsch did not cite the nominal species using an available name would mean that "G. falcicornis"
> (and thus G. pavonis) are not eligible for designation as type species of Goniodes.
> 
> Is this correct? Does this mean that G. pavonis is ineligible to be chosen as type species of Goniodes, or is the fact that P. pavonis was included as a synonym save it?
> 
> Grateful for any help!
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> 
> 
> Link to Nitzsch (1818):
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fbibliography%2F66072&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca9feed068d934933027a08dd8804c598%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638816276275501814%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zMHMLdsQQJExklEeZQ7ZXH%2FyxrY7x1YZ8hSGuwo0d9M%3D&reserved=0
> Link to Johnston & Harrison (1911):
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fitem%2F22901%23page%2F352%2Fmode%2F1up&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca9feed068d934933027a08dd8804c598%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638816276275519748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jEup6g80f7vmitpemURNPVUTAtCPzcgo8hwLkFk4JkI%3D&reserved=0
> 
> --
> Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
> 
> Ask me about chewing lice!
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
> 
> 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
> 
>