Taxacom: nomen nudum

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear John,

Why is Olethreutes in quotes? Olethreutes H?bner, 1822 is an available name.

It took me some time to understand that not Phalaena (Tortrix) betulana 
H?bner, 1787 was meant, but a name betulana as mentioned by Heinrich 
1926: 140.

In such requests, please add authorship and years to the names, and of 
possible, a link to a digitised original description so that we do not 
need to spend more than one hour for getting familiar with the 
background of such cases.

The name betulana was mentioned in a presentation of the species 
Exartema zellerianum (Fernald, 1882), where Heinrich (1926: 140) 
reported that Kearfott later used the name zellerianum for a different 
species and "gave the manuscript name betulana to the moths which he, 
Fernald and others had previously identified as zellerianum".
It is however unclear which moths were meant, because Fernald used the 
name, as Heinrich reported, for Zeller's specimens (by providing a 
bibliographical reference to Zeller 1875) and for specimens which did 
not match Zeller's description and figures. Heinrich provided a 
diagnostic statement for which species he used the name zellerianum, but 
this was not the diagnosis that would apply to Kearfott's manuscript name.

The name betulana was not made available because Heinrich used the name 
zellerianum for the species, so betulana failed to comply with Art. 
11.5, the name was not used as valid.
It was not established a new replacement name (for zellerianum sensu 
Kearfott, not Fernald 1882) because also for new replacement names the 
conditions of Art. 11.5 must be satisfied, and because a new replacement 
name can only replace an available name (a sensu name is not an 
available name).

Another problem is that Heinrich did not cite a generic name with which 
Kearfott would have combined betulana. Various candidate genera could be 
possible. Eccopis, Exartema and Cymolomia were cited, so that genus is 
not clear from the context. Failure to comply with Art. 11.9.3.

The term "nomen nudum" has not always been applied in the sense of the 
Code, which Thomas cited. In the present case the name is simply an 
unavailable name because of not complying with Art. 11.5.

Did the name comply with Art. 12?
It did not because a statement that the name was thought to apply to 
what authors previously identified as zellerianum is not a description 
or diagnosis in the sense of the Code.
The Glossary definition is silent about the conditions a nomen nudum has 
to satisfy to qualifying for being a nomen nudum. It does not state 
"fails to comply with Arts. 12 or 13 but satisfies all other conditions 
of availability)".
However we would probably not call a name that was not spelled in Latin 
letters a nomen nudum, even if this name did not have a description 
either. So there seem to be some implicit preconditions in the 
definition. I would personally not call a name that fails to comply with 
Arts. 11.5 and 11.9.3 a nomen nudum.

But others may have a different concept.

I did not understand the last part of the question.

If this helps.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 25.06.2025 um 04:50 schrieb John Grehan via Taxacom:
> I received this question from a colleague and would appreciate a
> determination.
> 
> John Brown treated 'Olethreutes' betulana (Tortricidae) as nomen nudum in
> his 2005 checklist Once a taxon been treated as nomen nudum can you go back
> to a previous treatment as a revised status ? such as Powell 1983
> 'Olethreutes' betulana Heinrich or do you have to go forward from the nomen
> nudum treatment with a replacement name?
> 
> John Grehan
>