Taxacom: a class of errors in Worms (and similar databases)

[Nicolson, David]

Dear all,

Let me put forth an example (from Heteroptera) so people can consider the ramifications.

In 1858 St?l published two new species names under the genus heading "CERILOCUS. St?l", here:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F15959513&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C1de997796c194103404908dd5529292e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638760357454798222%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z8ebCAAPJlc2HEsDgrw2uuxCkC4wKXdn1d6yO9WJRFg%3D&reserved=0

There you'll see C. Nero and C. Dohrni, two (new) species.

My interpretation is that per Art. 12.2.6, this does NOT make the genus available, as it was not a single species. But the two species are available.

In 1859, the same author made the same genus name available, with the same 2 species plus three more:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F15963309&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C1de997796c194103404908dd5529292e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638760357454818376%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AYTZUaWapw0dxTdGBpxCFTRi9mYdj6DK6cg8mtiFcIQ%3D&reserved=0

The 2 original 1858 species are still in use in recent decades (last check a few years back), and still in the 1859 genus, and these 3 names can be listed like so:
Cerilocus St?l, 1859

..Cerilocus dohrni St?l, 1858 [effectively as originally published]

..Cerilocus nero St?l, 1858 [effectively as originally published]


I agree with the assertion that it would not be very helpful to add parentheses to the two species' authorship.


So while it is useful to get a list of binomina that are non-parenthetical yet preceded the genus being available, such cases cannot be assumed to be in error, as has been noted, they must be checked (and hopefully annotated so that people don't end up needing to come back to ask about it again later).


If I made errors in assumptions or in deductions, I am very happy to be corrected, but this is how I currently understand things.


Cheers,

Dave Nicolson