Article 11. Requirements. To be available, a name or, where relevant, a nomenclatural act must satisfy the following provisions:
11.1. Publication. The name or nomenclatural act must have been published, in the meaning of Article 8, after 1757.
11.2. Mandatory use of Latin alphabet. A scientific name must, when first published, have been spelled only in the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet (taken to include the letters j, k, w and y); the presence in a name when first published of diacritic and other marks, apostrophes or ligatures, or a hyphen, or a numeral in a compound species-group name, does not render the name unavailable (for corrections, see Articles 27 and 32.5.2).
11.3. Derivation. Providing it meets the requirements of this Chapter, a name may be a word in or derived from Latin, Greek or any other language (even one with no alphabet), or be formed from such a word. It may be an arbitrary combination of letters providing this is formed to be used as a word.
Examples. Toxostoma and brachyrhynchos from the Greek; opossum from the Algonquian Indian; Abudefduf from the Arabic; korsac from the Russian; nakpo from the Tibetan; canguru from the Kokoimudji Aboriginal; Gythemon, an arbitrary combination of letters. The arbitrary combination of letters cbafdg cannot be used as a word and does not form a name.
Recommendation 11A. Use of vernacular names. An unmodified vernacular word should not be used as a scientific name. Appropriate latinization is the preferred means of formation of names from vernacular words.
11.4. Consistent application of binominal nomenclature. The author must have consistently applied the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature [Art. 5.1] in the work in which the name or nomenclatural act was published; however, this Article does not apply to the availability of names of taxa at ranks above the family group.
11.4.1. A published work containing family-group names or genus-group names without associated nominal species is accepted as consistent with the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
11.4.2. The scientific name of a subspecies, a trinomen [Art. 5.2], is accepted as consistent with the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature.
11.4.3. An index published before 1931 in a work that is not consistently binominal is acceptable itself as a work consistent with the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature provided that the Principle is consistently applied to scientific names in the index; thus a scientific name published in such an index is available if the name satisfies the other provisions of this Chapter and of Articles 4, 5 and 6, and if there is an unambiguous link between the entry in the index and the description, illustration, or indication in the text.
11.5. Names to be used as valid when proposed. To be available, a name must be used as valid for a taxon when proposed, unless it was first published as a junior synonym and subsequently made available under the provisions of Article 11.6.1.
11.5.1. A name proposed conditionally for a taxon before 1961 is not to be excluded on that account alone [Art. 15].
11.5.2. The status of a previously unavailable name is not changed by its mere citation (that is, without adoption for a taxon) even if accompanied by a reference to the work in which the name was published but was not made available.
Example. Chemnitz in 1780 described the gastropod Conus moluccensis and treated its name as valid, but in a work which was not consistently binominal and thus the name is unavailable. Dillwyn in 1817 cited the name Conus moluccensis, but did not use it as the valid name of a taxon. The name Conus moluccensis is not made available by Dillwyn's act, even though his citation was accompanied by a reference to Chemnitz's work. Küster (1838) applied the name to a taxon and attributed it to Chemnitz by bibliographic reference, thereby making the name Conus moluccensis Küster, 1838 available.
11.6. Publication as a synonym. A name which when first published in an available work was treated as a junior synonym of a name then used as valid is not thereby made available.
11.6.1. However, if such a name published as a junior synonym had been treated before 1961 as an available name and either adopted as the name of a taxon or treated as a senior homonym, it is made available thereby but dates from its first publication as a synonym (for type species if a genus-group name see Article 67.12; for name-bearing type if a species-group name see Article 72.4.3; for authorship see Article 50.7).
Examples. Meigen (1818), in discussion under Ceratopogon flavipes Meigen (Diptera), stated that he had received the material from Megerle under the manuscript name Palpomyia geniculata. Palpomyia, there published as a synonym of Ceratopogon, is an available name because before 1961 it was used as a valid name; it is attributed to Meigen, 1818. The specific name geniculata, never having been adopted, is not available from Meigen (1818).
11.6.2. A name published before 1758 but after 1757 cited as a synonym of a name used as valid cannot be made available under Article 11.6.
Example. The name "Cidaris miliaris Klein" (i.e. of Klein, 1734) cited by Linnaeus (1758) in the synonymy of Echinus esculentus Linnaeus, 1758 does not become available from Linnaeus (1758) as a result of its mere adoption for a taxon by another author.
11.6.3. A name first published after 1960 and treated as a junior synonym on that occasion cannot be made available from that act under Article 11.6.
11.7. Family-group names.
11.7.1. A family-group name when first published must meet all the following criteria. It must:
18.104.22.168. be a noun in the nominative plural formed from the stem of an available generic name [Art. 29] (indicated either by express reference to the generic name or by inference from its stem, but for family-group names proposed after 1999 see Article 16.2); the generic name must be a name then used as valid in the new family-group taxon [Arts. 63, 64] (use of the stem alone in forming the name is accepted as evidence that the author used the generic name as valid in the new family-group taxon unless there is evidence to the contrary);
Examples. The name ERYCIINAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (originally spelled ERYCINAE) is available because it was published for a family-group taxon that included the genus Erycia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. The name TRICHOCERIDAE Rondani, 1841 is available, although proposed without explicit mention of Trichocera Meigen, 1803, because it was published in a classification of the families of the Diptera of Europe with reference to Meigen and with a clear statement of Rondani's basic principle of forming all family names on the name of an included genus. PINNIDAE Leach, 1819 included not only Modiola Lamarck, 1801 and Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758, but also, by inference from the stem, Pinna Linnaeus, 1758, for which it was obviously founded; it is available.
The name "Macromydae" of Robineau-Desvoidy (1830) is not available because, although a formal latinized group name (not a vernacular), it was a descriptive term for a group of genera that did not include Macromya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, a genus placed in context in a different and distant division of the family Tachinidae.
22.214.171.124. be clearly used as a scientific name to denote a suprageneric taxon and not merely as a plural noun or adjective referring to the members of a genus;
Example. Osten Sacken (1882) published a key to eleven species of the dipteran genus Graptomyza under the heading "Graptomyzae of the Indo-Malayan Archipelago". The word "Graptomyzae" is a plural noun referring only to "the species of the genus Graptomyza"; it is not available as a family-group name.
126.96.36.199. end with a family-group name suffix except as provided in Article 11.7.2; a family-group name of which the family-group name suffix [Art. 29.2] is incorrect is available with its original authorship and date, but with a corrected suffix [Arts. 29, 32.5.3];
Example. Latreille (1802) established a family Tipulariae, based on Tipula Linnaeus, 1758. The suffix -ariae is corrected to -IDAE; TIPULIDAE is attributed to Latreille, not to the author who first corrected the spelling.
188.8.131.52. not be based on certain names applied only to fossils and ending in the suffix -ites, -ytes or -ithes [Art. 20];
184.108.40.206. not be based on a genus-group name that has been suppressed by the Commission [Art. 78].
11.7.2. If a family-group name was published before 1900, in accordance with the above provisions of this Article but not in latinized form, it is available with its original author and date only if it has been latinized by later authors and has been generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned and as dating from that first publication in vernacular form.
Example. The mite family name TETRANYCHIDAE is generally attributed to Donnadieu, 1875. He published the name as "Tétranycidés", but in view of the general acceptance of TETRANYCHIDAE from 1875 it is to be attributed to his work and date, not to Murray (1877), who first latinized it.
11.8. Genus-group names. A genus-group name (see also Article 10.3) must be a word of two or more letters and must be, or be treated as, a noun in the nominative singular.
11.8.1. A genus-group name proposed in Latin text but written otherwise than in the nominative singular because of the requirements of Latin grammar is available, provided that it meets the other requirements of availability, but it is to be corrected to the nominative singular.
Example. The generic name Diplotoxa (Diptera) was proposed by Loew (1863) in a note under "Chlorops versicolor nov. sp." as follows: "Chlor. versicolor cum similibus proprium genus ... constituit, cui nomen Diplotoxae propono" [Chlor. versicolor and similar species constitute a separate genus, for which I propose the name of Diplotoxa].
11.9. Species-group names.
11.9.1. A species-group name must be a word of two or more letters, or a compound word (see Article 11.9.5), and, if a Latin or latinized word must be, or be treated as,
220.127.116.11. an adjective or participle in the nominative singular (as in Echinus esculentus, Felis marmorata, Seioptera vibrans), or
18.104.22.168. a noun in the nominative singular standing in apposition to the generic name (as in Struthio camelus, Cercopithecus diana), or
22.214.171.124. a noun in the genitive case (e.g. rosae, sturionis, thermopylarum, galliae, sanctipauli, sanctaehelenae, cuvieri, merianae, smithorum), or
126.96.36.199. an adjective used as a substantive in the genitive case and derived from the specific name of an organism with which the animal in question is associated (as in Lernaeocera lusci, a copepod parasitic on Trisopterus luscus).
11.9.2. An adjectival species-group name proposed in Latin text but written otherwise than in the nominative singular because of the requirements of Latin grammar is available provided that it meets the other requirements of availability, but it is to be corrected to the nominative singular if necessary.
Example. Accompanying his treatment of the species Musca grossa and M. tremula, Illiger (1807) described a new fly stating "... species occurrit, Grossae et Tremulae intermedia ... quam Pavidam nuncupamus" [there is a species intermediate between M. grossa and M. tremula, which is here called pavida]. The specific name published in the accusative case as pavidam is corrected to the nominative pavida.
11.9.3. A species-group name must be published in unambiguous combination with a generic name (either explicit, or implicit by context);
Example. In the Example to Article 11.9.2 above, the combinations are not revealed explicitly by juxtaposition, or language (i.e. the use of Latin names distinct from the rest of the text), but are clear from the context. The specific name pavida is taken to have been published in combination with Musca.
188.8.131.52. the generic name need not be valid or even available;
184.108.40.206. a species-group name is deemed to have been published in combination with the correct original spelling of the generic name, even if it was actually published in combination with an emendation or incorrect spelling of the generic name [Art. 33];
220.127.116.11. the generic name may be cited as an abbreviation providing it is unambiguous in the context in which the new species-group name is published;
18.104.22.168. the generic combination, although it must be unambiguous, can be tentative;
Example. In the binomen Dysidea? papillosa Johnston, 1842, the tentative generic combination does not affect the availability of the specific name.
22.214.171.124. a species-group name first published as an interpolated name [Art. 6.2] cannot be made available from that act;
126.96.36.199. a species-group name first published before 1961 in combination with a previously available generic name, but accompanied in the same work by a new nominal genus conditionally proposed [Art. 15] to contain the new species or subspecies, is deemed to have been made available in combination with the previously available generic name (see Articles 15.1 and 51.3.3).
Example. Lowe (1843) established the new fish species Seriola gracilis and at the same time conditionally proposed a new genus Cubiceps to contain that nominal species. By that action he is deemed to have established first the nominal species Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843 and then to have transferred it to the conditionally proposed genus Cubiceps, in which its name is cited as Cubiceps gracilis (Lowe, 1843).
11.9.4. A species-group name must not consist of words related by a conjunction nor include a sign that cannot be spelled out in the Latin alphabet (see Article 11.2; for the use of the hyphen, see Article 188.8.131.52.3).
Examples. Expressions like "rudis planusque" (in which "-que" is a conjunction) and "?-album" are not admissible as species-group names.
11.9.5. If a species-group name is published as separate words that together represent or refer to a single entity (e.g. host species, geographical area), in a work in which the author has otherwise consistently applied the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature [Art. 5.1], the component words are deemed to form a single word and are united without a hyphen [Art. 184.108.40.206].
Examples. The specific names in Coluber novaehispaniae, Calliphora terraenovae and Cynips quercusphellos (the last named based on the binominal name of the host plant) were originally published as two words, but they are admissible because together they denote a single entity. However, the words "aquilegiae flava" in Aphis aquilegiae flava (i.e. the yellow aphis of Aquilegia) do not form an admissible species-group name because they are a descriptive phrase not based on the name of a single entity.
11.10. Deliberate employment of misidentifications. If an author employs a specific or subspecific name for the type species of a new nominal genus-group taxon, but deliberately in the sense of a previous misidentification of it, then the author's employment of the name is deemed to denote a new nominal species and the specific name is available with its own author and date as though it were newly proposed in combination with the new genus-group name (see Article 67.13 for fixation as type species of a species originally included as an expressly stated earlier misidentification, and Article 69.2.4 for the subsequent designation of such a species as the type species of a previously established nominal genus or subgenus).
Example. Leach (1817) when establishing the nominal genus Plea (Heteroptera) fixed Notonecta minutissima as the type species by monotypy, but he expressly employed the name N. minutissima in the sense of a misidentification used by Geoffroy in Fourcroy (1785) and other authors and not in the taxonomic sense of Linnaeus (1758), the original author of the binomen. By that act Leach is deemed to have established the new nominal species Plea minutissima Leach, 1817 for the taxon actually involved and to have fixed this (and not Notonecta minutissima Linnaeus, 1758) as the type species of Plea.
Preamble | Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 | Glossary Appendices Constitution
The first rule of this article was the subject of a debate on the [iczn-list] listserver in June 2015. The example "rudis planusque" illustrates an example of two separate words related by a conjunction. A clear statement should be added that a one-word name "rudisplanusque" would be admissible. It would be useful to show that it is not the conjunction that causes the problem, but the separate status of the words in that example.
"An adjectival species-group name" should be replaced by "A species-group name" - because also nouns can be placed in the genitive or whatever case.
Example: Eichwald (1841) established a new hymenopteran specific name as a noun in apposition in a Latin text as Formicam longipedem in the accusative case. The name was made available and is corrected to Formica longipes under Art. 220.127.116.11.
Art. 11.8.1 and Art. 11.9.2:
Both should include a cross-reference to Art. 18.104.22.168. Because in Art. 11 only the availability is ruled, in Art. 32 the correct spelling.
Cross-reference to Art. 24.2.6, where I have listed some examples of another problem: an explicit rule is needed that the original author who established a new name and mentioned a synonym below it, acted as First Reviser to select one of these two names.
It should be made clear that precedence can be defined objectively in such a case and that the synonym cannot be used. We have cases in malacology where authors thought that in those cases where the synonym was once used for a taxon, some subsequent author would somewhen act as First Reviser. However a First Reviser under Art. 24.2.1 can only be consulted if the precedence cannot be determined objectively.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||22.214.171.124 seems to need examples.
This Article seems to be frequently overlooked, also by experts in nomenclature. This is visible when authorships and dates are embedded in paentheses if species were originally combined with unjustified emendations of generic names. Adding some examples could help.
Mangelia difficilis Locard & Caziot, 1900 (Gastropoda) was originally established as Mangilia difficilis; Mangilia Fischer, 1883 was an unjustified emendation of Mangelia Risso, 1826. The original combination should be cited as Mangelia difficilis.
Proposed emendation to cover alternate names. Perhaps as Art. 11.5.3.
This Article has been misinterpreted in that the proposal of two names for the same taxon in the same work (alternate names, see my proposal for a definition of this term in the Glossary) was regarded as not in agreement with the Code (an example was Fricke 2008 (Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde (A Neue Serie) 1), a work on Forskal's 1775 fish names). The misunterstanding originated in the wording "a name must be used", which was argued to mean "one name must be used" (in many languages there is only one word for "a" and "one"), and to exclude that more than one name could have been used for the same taxon in the same work. Art. 24.2.2 allows this explicitly and provides exact guidelines about the precedence of such names.
It would be useful to provide a guideline in Art. 11.5 how to interpret those cases in which 2 names were used for the same taxon. In the early literature two patterns can be observed (and zoologists are always totally helpless how to deal with such cases):
1 - both names were new. In this case I would propose to regard them as objective synonyms (by default they would be subjective synonyms if the taxon had more than one name-bearing type: name A could get selected a different lectotype than name B). The First Reviser (Art. 24.2.2) would select precedence between two objective synonyms.
2 - one name was new, the other equally used name was a previously established name. In this case I would propose to regard the new name as new and to neglect the other name (so the new name should not be considered as an objective synonym of the older name). The types of the new name would be the specimens that author had, plus those which were added by bibliographical references. The citation of the author and date of the previously established name alone would not count as a bibliographic reference, if no other bibliographic information (for instance, page number) was given. (It would be very important to add the last point because this question is frequently the source of never ending disputes).
The solution of case 1 would reflect current practice.
The solution of case 2 would reflect current practice, particularly in those cases where an author used a new name, cited the other name and subsequent authors found that the author had misidentified the other name. In such cases the new name was usually recognised as a regular new name, with its own types. In the other cases (in which both names were conspecific) the new name is usually harmless and has subsequently been considered as a simple junior synonym.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||11.10 should be slightly modified
The rule is good, and also the example, but the conditions which have to be met should be explained slightly more in detail. The Leach 1817 example is so abolutely clear (it meets various rigorous conditions at once), so that questions remain open what to do in cases where not all these conditions were met.
- The previous misidentification should be explicit, for example by citing an (incorrect) author behind the specific name (??? should this be regarded as sufficient or not???), or by giving bibliographical references (as done by Leach 1817: 14 and Gray 1840: 212).
- The term "previous" should be clear. It should probably refer to a previous publication (and not to previous misidentifications in museum labels and other unpublished sources). A misidentification published for the first time by the author who intends to establish the new genus or subgenus should probably not fall under this Article. But see the example I gave under Art. 67.13 (Vignon & Ancey 1888, Vignon misidentified the species and Ancey established a new genus in a footnote on the same page), such cases should probably be included here.
- Such a new nominal species also needs to meet the requirements of Art. 12.1. It is the misidentified species for which a description must have been published somewhere. This should be added for not creating the misunderstanding that Art. 12.1 can be ignored.
- The term "deliberate" should be defined in a clear form: the author must have shown awareness that the name used in the cited previous sources was really misidentified. It would be helpful to add a statement to explain the limit between Art. 11.10 and Art. 70.3.
English and French version differ in content and should be aligned.
In the English version this seems to include works in which some animals had uninominal names, while others had binominal names. In the French version only works are accepted in which exclusively uninominal names were used. I would suggest to modify the French version.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 11.5 again
Results of a discussion in the [iczn-list] mailing list "precedence in new replacement names" (Oct 2012): this Article needs an extension to legalize introductions of new replacement names published in short notes, without any taxonomic context.
This concerns thousands of names that have not explicitly been treated as valid in these short notes (the authors often said "this name is preoccupied, so I herewith propose a new replacement name", in the same spirit as type species and type specimens are selected for names that can be considered as synonyms).
It should be ruled that these names (1) are by definition available, and (2) their original rank must be specified if not given in the original source (because of two simultaneously established names, that of higher rank takes precedence under Art. 24.1).
(1) My proposal:
"A name proposed as a new replacement name without any taxonomic context is to be regarded as having been used for the taxon to be replaced at its original rank, and in agreement with this Article."
(2) David Campbell's proposal (15 Oct 2012):
"The rank of a new replacement name, if not otherwise specified in the original source , should be taken to be that of the original name."
The term "consistent" is very useful here, because it allows to define a name quite clearly as not in accordance with this rule. It is however problematic that the details of what exactly should be consistent, remain largely undefined. This is not necessary because, as shown in previous posts, it is possible to give more useful and detailed definitions and guidelines.
"Consistent application of binominal nomenclature" has aparently since very long have been regarded as a very basic rule for scientific nomenclature, and many works were excluded and neglected on the basis of this provision. It seems that numerous early French works were neglected simply because their names were not consistently Latin names. The binominality as such was not the problem why these works were neglected (French scientific names consisted of genus and species, often they were only translations of Linnean names), but the fact that the language used for the names was not Latin. Buffon (head of the museum in Paris) did not allow the use of Linnean names in his area of influence. This is why most French authors who depended directly or indirectly from Buffon, used French names. Buffon died in 1788. After that many French authors switched quickly to the Latin names. But this was a slow process. Some authors in the following 10-30 years took a while until they understood that they had to separate both naming systems, French and Latin. It seems that authors who mixed up both languages (and at one occasion used a French name, at the next occasion a Latin name as the one and only valid name for an animal), have not been considered as "consistently" binominal in the sense of this provision. The main point was the Latin language, not the binominality as such.
Why were works that used French names neglected?
We have to consider that in some scientific names it is not possible to tell whether they are Latin or French, because they are spelled in the same orthography in both languages. This means that names established in "pure" French works would eventually also count for Linnean nomenclature, because these French names were strictly binominal and would be admissible under Art. 11.4.
Then we glide directly into the next problem.
This is the effect of admission of French names on the original spelling of names. If zoologists would accept a mixed nomenclature of French and Latin names (examples Férussac 1812, Férussac 1814) as admissible, then the French names would also count as scientific names (there is currently nothing in the Code that would stop a taxonomist from regarding them as correctly established). For rarely used generic names this would mean that the correct spelling would have to be shifted to the French version, and for many others that authorships would have to be shifted to the first French versions. This has never been done. The only way to exclude such a procedure from being admissible is to regard any work as "not consistently binominal" that does not consistently use Latin or Latinised names as the Linnean scientific names for animals.
We also have authors who used German or English names as the only valid names for animals. Those authors have occasionally cited (but not used) a scientific name. This does not count as a name usage. Examples could be given how to treat and interpret these works in relation to Art. 11.4.
It is also not explicit in Art. 11.4 that merely citing a non-binominal name does not render a work "not consistently binominal". "Applying" scientific nomenclature should mean that the scientific names USED by the author should be consistent, not the CITED names. This is often overlooked (example: Steiner & Kabat 2001: 441 in their interpretation of Schröter 1784 who had cited many polynominal names, but always attributed to non-Linnean authors and not used as scientific names himself).
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||11.6.1 once again, never ending
The provisions and interpretations of this Article should be set in line with those of Art. 33.2.1 for the unjustified emendations. In both Articles the term "adopted" is used, and its meaning should be the same. It was clarified in April 2012 in an [iczn-list] discussion that for "adopting" a spelling it is necessary that the author is explicitly (by bibliographical reference) or at least implicitly aware of the original source and of the intentional act what he or she is doing there. The same interpretation should apply here. The difference is, here in the case of Art. 11.6.1 such a restrictive interpretation is much more important, in European non-marine molluscs I currently record 49 against 2 or so cases, we have only little problems in the definition of unjustified emendations (if they occur they are not significant), while the problems with Art. 11.6.1 are much more serious.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||11.6.1 once again
An additional provision would be useful.
"If the spellings of the names differed in the source where the synonym was mentioned, and in the source where the name was first used for a taxon, then the synonym was not made available, neither in the first nor in any subsequent source, and the name must be attributed to the source where the name was first used for a taxon and met all other conditions of availability."
Example: Pfeiffer (1848) mentioned a gastropod name Pupa vergnesiana in synonymy. Küster (1850) used the name Pupa vergniesiana for the same taxon. Küster (1850) did not adopt Pfeiffer's name because the spellings were different. Any subsequent spelling vergnesiana is classified as an incorrect subsequent spelling or unjustified emendation of Küster's name and did not make Pfeiffer's synonym available, even if it referred bibliographically to Pfeiffer's source.
In the absence of a clear ruling we run into disputes which spelling should be regarded as an incorrect subsequent spelling of which one. The date difference in this particular case is not of influence. Prevailing usage is probably no option to solve the problem, the name is very rarely used.
See my comment under Glossary "valid".
The term "valid" as used here is an insider term and not in alignment with its use in the common English language and in English standard dictionaries. The definitions in the Glossary are partly based on circular reasoning ("a ticket is a valid ticket if it is used as a valid ticket"), and leave unnecessary space for interpretations of undisputed cases (concerning the never disputed availability of names that were used but which were not in accordance with Art. 23.1 in its present-day form), also because the French and English versions of Art. 11.5 deviate from each other and point to different definitions in the Glossaries.
My proposal is to remove the term "valid" from Art. 11.5, and to replace it by terms that are commonly understood ("a name used as correct", "used for a taxon in the author's own classification" or so), leaving space for those rare cases in which two alternate names were proposed for a taxon (these names are usually important and needed).
To the examples should be added: Conus stercusmuscarum, Spatangus striatoradiatus.
Conus stercusmuscarum is an important Linnean name, S. striatoradiatus an important echinoderm name established by Leske (1778) in two separate words as Spatangus striato radiatus. These are examples for cases where neither a host species nor a geographical area was meant.
This Article is frequently misunderstood that only host species and geographical areas are allowed here. Many taxonomists argue that a hyphen must be regarded as decisive for the decision whether a compound name is admissible or not (Dubois & Bour 2010, Zootaxa 2447: 1-52). It is frequently argued that striato radiatus is unavailable, while striato-radiatus is available. Art. 11.9.5 should be more precise.
Buchanan et al. (1948: 291, Bacteriological Code) gave a useful guide and explained that in the name Bacillus aureus lactis both terms referred to the generic name, the specific name was composed of a sequence of two unrelated words. They also explained that hyphenating the two words (B. aureus-lactis) would not improve the situation, both words would still remain unrelated. Only by combining the two words grammatically (B. aurei-lactis), the meaning would be changed and the compound name would be acceptably binominal. The nature of binominality is the same in zoological names.
A name S. striatus radiatus would not be binominal in this sense.
Fricke (2008) who regarded presence of a hyphen as decisive considered a specific name abu samf as unavailable and another name abu-kohhla as available, both were of Arabic origin and proposed in the same work (abu means "father of" and always referred to the other Arabic word).
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||11.3 should be modified:
11.3. Derivation. Providing it meets the requirements of this Chapter, a name may be a word in or derived from Latin, Greek or any other language (even one with no alphabet), or be formed from such a word. It may be an arbitrary or deliberately constructed combination of letters providing this is formed to be used as a word. A word in the sense of this Article must be based on a spoken concept of a name, it must be pronounceable in some language. It or its stem must not exclusively be composed of consonants.
The problem is that the term "word" remains undefined in the Code. The Article should try to draw the line between cbafdg and what is understood as a word in the sense of this Article. Why exactly is cbafdg not a word?
A definition of "word" seems difficult, but it seems to have to do with pronounciation. If a name is euphonious there is usually no discussion about it, regardless of the definition "word".
There have been repeatedly discussions in the mailing lists (Taxacom, iczn-list) why BMNH or MNHN should not be regarded as names, and if acronyms were words. It was also raised that the term "word" does not necessarily include personal names which are not found in dictionaries.
Acronyms are words in the German and French definitions, but probably not (only abbreviations) in the English definition.
"Must be pronounceable in some language" would be a possible solution, at least this seems to cover most names generally regarded as available. Maybe not zzzyzz and other nonsense, but I would not care much about these.
I also propose to add a restriction for works composed only of consonants. This would exclude some Croatian and Czech words, Krk island and so, but I do not think they were used as names in that pure form. The consonant rule would restrict names like bmnhi. A name brimunahi would not be restricted under such a rule, could perhaps serve as an example.
It would be useful to have such an objectively applicable rule in an Article, since presence in examples alone does not stop disputes.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 11.4.4 follow-up
Example for a binominal work with polynominal names:
Rossmässler 1835-1837 (Iconographie) was a very important work for molluscs with hundreds of new species-group names. Among these were some clearly polynominal names: "Helix fruticum var. rufescens concolor", "Helix fruticum var. albida concolor", "Helix fruticum var. unifasciata albida vel rufescens", "Clausilia ventricosa var. minor interlamellari pliculato". They were also repeated in the index, so clearly meant as names. There is no option to regard this work as unavailable, 5.4 % of the currently used European mollusc names are attributed to Rossmässler.
The Bacteriological Code (1948) has a passage where the limits between a binominal and a polynominal name, visible in the grammatical structure of the compound words of the specific name, are explained.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||A new Article 11.8.2 should be inserted.
11.8.2. If a genus-group name is published as separate words which were connected by a hyphen in the original source, the component words are deemed to form a single word and are united without the hyphen [Art. 126.96.36.199].
Examples. The compound names used for the genera Athienemannia, Amplexizaphrentis, Arcoscalpellum, Armatobalanus, Austroperipatus, Belemnosepia, Cecidomyiaceltis, Channomuraena and Concholepas were all originally published as separate words with a hyphen.
Comment. This Article is necessary because otherwise these names would not be available. They are all used, data were taken from Nomenclator Zoologicus www.ubio.org/NZ, where some 100 names with hyphens are listed, in letter C I stopped checking the current usage of these names (1/2 of the cited names are currently used, so in total about 50 names, the others are either synonyms or were not meant as names and misinterpreted by Neave). I checked the original descriptions of the gastropods Concho-Lepas Solander, 1786 and Xero-Campylaea Kobelt, 1871. Channo-Muraena Richardson, 1844 and Hemi-Ramphus Cuvier, 1816 were verified by Bill Eschmeyer, Catalog of Fishes. Another verified fish name Pseudo-Helotes Guimarães, 1882 is currently not used.
I would not know any cases where such a rule would be harmful for binominal nomenclature, and I suspect that those who wrote the Code did not know that such cases existed.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||11.6.1 once again.
Art. 11.6.1 does not exclude that the name "published as a junior synonym" could have been trated as valid. I would strongly recommend to include my proposal "1 - Must have a description.". Otherwise we would have to solve the following problem otherwise:
Pfeiffer 1842 mentioned a name Helix rossmaessleri (Gastropoda) in a list, without description or indication, but with a synonym Helix advena Rossmässler, 1842 (non Webb & Berthelot, 1833; Pfeiffer just wrote "advena Rm." and did not give an expressed statement to identify H. rossmaessleri as a new replacement name, which means that H. rossmaessleri was not a new replacement name under Art 72.7).
Helix advena was a senior synonym, H. rossmaessleri (if regarded as available) a junior synonym - the junior synonym was the name treated as valid here. Usually, for being available, a name treated as valid would need a description or indication. But if Art. 11.6.1 "published as a junior synonym" is interpreted in a way that any name can be established without description, if a senior synonym was attached to such a name but not used, then H. rossmaessleri would be available under this Article. It is unclear from the present wording if "published AS a junior synonym" should exclude that the name was treated as valid at that occasion.
This problem is solved most easily if a description is made obligatory for any new name, no matter whether first treated as valid or mentioned as a synonym.
(The name is used today for a species Helicigona rossmaessleri from E Europe, authorship can be taken from Pfeiffer 1848 who gave a description.)
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||A new Article 11.4.4 should be inserted.
"11.4.4. Presence of a polynominal name in a work, deliberately used for a scientific name in the author's own classification, is to be taken as evidence against a consistent application of binominal nomenclature (but see Art. 11.9.5 and 188.8.131.52 for names published as separate words which represent or refer to a single entity)."
This would be useful because the expression "consistent application of binominal nomenclature" remains almost entirely undefined, and a clear guide in the Code is needed to define what is a non-binominal work.
This (presence of polynominal names) is the only decisive evidence we use in AnimalBase to classify a work as non-binominal. An author can have violated many other rules of the Code and the work remains binominal.
I inserted "deliberately" in the proposal because we have some examples of widely accepted works which are largely binominal, but where 1 or 2 polynominal names are contained, either undesired or overlooked by the author, or in a probably incorrect interpretation of Latin grammar (an incorrect connecting vowel may render a name polynominal). For many decades nobody had consulted these works - now that they are online such failures can be discovered. I do not know examples off hand, unfortunately. But I saw some.
Examples for polynominal names (taken from Koelreuter 1764, De Geer 1773, Retzius 1783, Drury 1773): Aphis aquilegiae flava, Cyprinus pinna caudae horizontali, Piscis Smyrnensis ad Mustelas accedens, Sparus duabus utrinque maculis notatus, Sphinx Ocellatus Jamaicensis, Phalaena sulphurea caudata, Phalaena strobilorum Pini major, Coccus ovatus Ulmi, Bombylius tabaniformis-griseus, Cicada foliata-fasciata, Phalaena nigra cristata, Cimex griseus nigro-punctatus.
Phalaena nigra cristata is polynominal because both adjectives refer to the genus, Phalaena nigro cristata is binominal because both adjectives refer to each other [Art. 11.9.5].
Some more examples from the index of Seba 1761: Stella marina singularis, Ungula diabolis imperfecta, Fungus marinus lapideus, Gobius pinnis ventralibus disjunctis, Blennius fronte perpendiculariter declivi, Perca tota maculis fuscis & punctis albis varia.
Goto 2001 argued that the index of Seba 1761 was consistently binominal, and used a name Squalus varius which was mentioned in this index. Catalog of Fishes (08-2010) listed this name as Squalus varius Seba, 1759, as valid. Such interpretations could be avoided if the Code would explain what a polynominal name is, combined with a clear statement that presence of such names would render a work or index as not consistently binominal.
Schröter (1784, "Einleitung in die Conchylienkenntniß nach Linné", volume 2) did not use binominal names in his main work (with one exception), but in the second index at the end of the volumes, binominal names were given. The names are available from the index.
Seba (1761) used many polynominal names, in the main work as well as in the index. This work is not available for nomenclature.
The Drury 1773 example cannot be taken here, this index was validated by the Commission and contains one polynominal name.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Recommendation 11A should be modified:
Recommendation 11A. Use of vernacular names. An unmodified vernacular word should not be used as a scientific name.
The sentence "Appropriate latinization is the preferred means of formation of names from vernacular words." should be removed. Such a recommendation is outdated and unnecessary. Modern zoologists should not be forced to know so much Latin any more to be able to know how to form a correct latinization.
We also also remove this recommendation entirely. There are not many undescribed animals left that have vernacular names which could be used in a unmodified form.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||11.1. should be slightly modified:
11.1. Publication. The name or nomenclatural act must have been published, in the meaning of Article 8, after 1757 (except Clerck's work "Svenska spindlar" which was published in 1757).
This is necessary to avoid misunderstandings, because Clerck's work was published in 1757. Even if this work is defined to carry the date of 1758 for the purposes of the Code (Art. 3.1), its historically true date of publication under Art. 21.2 remains 1757 (and thus it had not been published after 1757).
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 11.6 revisited.
This is a complete proposal how to validate names under Art. 11.6. It should substitute the lack of standards.
1 - Must have a description. Like every new name a validated synonym should satisfy in its original publication the requirements of Art. 12 and 13. A description, figure or bibliographical reference should have been published at the place where the synonym was originally mentioned. The reference to an available name alone should not be recognized as a description, definition or indication.
2 - Bibliographical reference. An author adopting a name published originally in synonymy should explicitely have referred to that name by citing it in a bibliographically unambiguous way. Giving the name of an author alone, without at least an unambiguous abbreviation of the corresponding work, should not be recognized as a bibliographical reference - even if the author is known to have published only one single work.
3 - No doubts on the identity of the nominal taxon. The author who validated the name should not have had any doubts that both names belonged subjectively to the same nominal taxon. An author who used a name for subjectively (from the point of view of the author) another nominal taxon did not adopt the previously published synonymous name.
4 - No conditional use allowed. An author who intended to adopt a name previously established as a synonym must not have used this name conditionally. (And in Art. 15.1 any use of a name in the sense of Art. 11.6 should be excluded).
5 - Synonym of an available name. In the publication where the synonym was first mentioned, it must have been cited as a synonym of an available name. A synonym of a nomen nudum shall be excluded.
6 - Previous use as a new name is superior to validation. The synonym must have been made available by the first author who used the name for subjectively the same taxon in a current classification. Any subsequent reference to the synonym should not be effective, a synonym cannot be validated if the name had already been used by an author who had not referred to it.
In other words, the act of making available a name previously mentioned as a synonym shall compete in priority with the act of establishing it as a new name. The intention to describe a new taxon should be considered superior to simply mentioning a name as a synonym.
7 - Species-group name not eligible as type species prior to validation. A species-group name first published as a synonym and later validated is not eligible as type species for a genus-group name until the date it was validated under the provisions of this article.
8 - Accepted limits in ranks. A specific name can have been cited as a synonym of another specific or subspecific name or a subordinate variant. A generic name cannot have been cited as a synonym of a specific name. A genus used as a synonym in a genus-species combination does not need to have been combined with an available specific name.
9 - Author and date. When effectively validated, the name first mentioned as a synonym will take date and author of the publication where it was first mentioned. The author should be the author(s) of the work alone. If the synonym was originally attributed to another person, this should be ignored.
10 - Original genus of a specific synonym. The original genus of a specific name should be the genus which was used for the name in the classification of the publication in which the synonym was mentioned. If the specific synonym was originally mentioned in combination with another generic synonym, this should not be the original genus for the specific synonym.
11 - Original combination. The original combination should be cited as xxx synonym yyy.
This proposal was elaborated in malacological contexts and regarded as useful/acceptable by E. Gittenberger (Leiden, NL, 08.2009). If accepted, we could bring this in a Code-compliant text form and add examples to illustrate the meanings.
It will lead to provide stability in malacological nomenclature. The names which had been used, will remain available and usable, and the names which were threatened by the lack of standards in 4th edition, are not going to be threatened any more.
Example for 2. The Cochlodina marisi problem (Gastropoda).
Pfeiffer 1868 mentioned a name Clausilia transsilvanica synonym Clausilia Marisi, and gave a reference to such a name published by Bielz 1863. Bielz 1863 had mentioned a name Clausilia transsilvanica synonym Clausilia Marisi, and had corrected this name in the same work to a name Clausilia transsilvanica synonym Clausilia Marusii. Pfeiffer & Clessin 1881 were the first to use Clausilia marisi for a taxon, with bibliographical reference to Pfeiffer 1868, not to Bielz 1863. The name must be Clausilia marisi Pfeiffer, 1868, not Cl. marusii Bielz, 1863.
Example for 3 (and 6). The Retinella hiulca problem (Gastropoda). Rossmässler 1838 mentioned a name Helix nitens synonym Helix hiulca. Albers 1850 was the first to have used Helix hiulca for a taxon and doubted that Rossmässler's 1838 use of the name was correct. Albers 1850 did not adopt Rossmässler's synonym, but established a new name Helix hiulca Albers, 1850. Later authors who used Helix hiulca in Rossmässler's sense did not validate Rossmässler's 1838 name, so that the name can be used in Albers' sense.
Example for 4. The Mengoana brigantina/jeschaui problem (Gastropoda). Ortiz de Zárate y López 1949 established a new subgenus Mengoana and used deliberately a previously misidentified name (Art. 11.10) Helix brigantina as used by Kobelt 1878 (not Da Silva Mengo, 1867 - Ortiz de Zárate stated that he did not know the identity of Da Silva Mengo's species, today we know these were different nominal species) as the only included species. Ortiz de Zárate 1949 also mentioned that if Kobelt 1878 misinterpreted Helix brigantina, the name Helix jeschaui mentioned by Kobelt 1878 in the synonymy of Helix brigantina could possibly be used. It is convenient not to recognize such conditional acts as valid under Art. 15.1 and set a full stop at this point, nomenclature should not become too difficult (it would be necessary to discuss further consequences on the availability of type species in such cases...). Type species of Mengoana Ortiz de Zárate y López, 1949 should be Mengoana brigantina Ortiz de Zárate y López, 1949 by monotypy.
Example for 6. The Chilostoma squammatina problem. Rossmässler 1835 mentioned a name Helix cornea synonym Helix squamatina (sic) (Gastropoda). For (subjectively from today's generally accepted point if view) the same species Moquin-Tandon 1855 established Helix cornea var. squammatina (sic) without reference to Rossmässler 1835. Moquin-Tandon did not adopt Rossmässler's name. The name and spelling squammatina must be taken from Moquin-Tandon 1855, although later authors might have referred to Rossmässler's name.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||A new article 11.8.2 should be added.
"11.8.2. If a genus-group name is published as separate words which are united with a hyphen and together represent or refer to a single entity, in a work in which the author has otherwise consistently applied the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature [Art. 5.1], the component words are deemed to form a single word and are united without a hyphen [Art. 184.108.40.206]."
This would be the equivalent of Art. 11.9.5, for genera. It is necessary because "must be a word" (Art. 11.8) allows a strict interpretation by which two words united by a hyphen would not be available.
Examples: Channo-Muraena Richardson 1848 (Actinopterygii) becomes Channomuraena, Hemi-Rhamphus Cuvier 1816 (Actinopterygii) becomes Hemirhamphus, Xero-Campylaea Kobelt, 1871 (Gastropoda) becomes Xerocampylaea.
Example: Phalaena [g] graecum (Lepidoptera) as used by Retzius 1783 was spelled with the letter g (= gamma) in Greek script. Since the gamma was intended to be part of the name, and not in Latin script, the name was not made available by Retzius 1783.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||11.5.1 should be more explicit.
11.5.1. A name proposed conditionally for a taxon before 1961 is not to be excluded on that account alone [Art. 15]. The conditions need not be defined (alternate names for the same nominal taxon are not excluded).
Examples: Wang 1850 used a name Aus bus and stated that its correct name should probably be Aus cus. Both names were used as valid for the nominal species, Aus bus directly, and Aus cus conditionally.
Garsault 1764 mentioned a nominal actinopterygian genus "Clupea seu Alosa". Both names were used as valid for the nominal genus, Clupea Linnæus, 1758 and Alosa Garsault, 1764.
Fischer 1778 mentioned a mammalian nominal species "Mustela candida seu Ermineum". Both names were used as valid for the nominal species, M. candida Linnæus, 1758 and M. ermineum Fischer, 1778.
This is necessary because the Code defines nowhere else how to treat the use of alternate names. Currently such names are subject to most contrasting interpretations. Discussions in the [iczn-list] mailing list (2008) remained unsolved. Many regard alternate names as available because the Code does not expressly restrict them. Many others regard them as unavailable because some terms in the Glossary seem to suggest implicitly that a nominal taxon can only have one name.
A mandatory solution is desireable. I would opt in favour of regarding those names as available. This seems to agree with traditional usage, many names are in use. Alosa is an important fish genus.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||11.6.2. should also be modified.
11.6.2. A name published before 1758 but after 1757 cited with an unambiguous bibliographical reference as a synonym of a name used as valid cannot be made available under Article 11.6.
Example. The name "Cidaris miliaris" with a bibliographic reference to "Klein. echinod. 16. t. 9." (= [Klein] ) cited by Linnaeus (1758) in the synonymy of Echinus esculentus Linnaeus, 1758 does not become available from Linnaeus (1758) as a result of its mere adoption for a taxon by another author.
This is necessary to provide stability in the interpretation of this article. Many names of taxa were cited with an author but without bibliographic reference, and many names had never been published at all. Art. 11.6.2 was obviously established to reduce the potential damage of Art. 11.6.
"for name-bearing type if a species-group name see Article 72.4.3" - in the printed version is stated "Art. 73-75", 72.4.3 is correct, make sure that this is not forgotten in the 5th edition.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||A new passage should be added:
Art. 11.5.3. Alternate names. An author can have used and accepted two or more names as the correct names for a species. Their precedence is fixed by the First Reviser [Art. 24.2].
Example: Forskål 1775: 25 proposed the names Cottus rogad and Cottus insidiator (Actinopterygii) as two new alternate names for the same species, without indicating a preference for one name. Both names are available, the precedence is fixed by the First Reviser.
If gender agreement is removed from the Code, 11.9.1. would be modified:
"A species-group name must be a word of two or more letters, or a compound word (see Article 11.9.5)."
220.127.116.11-18.104.22.168 would be deleted.
My proposal from 07-10-2008 concerning a new article 11.9.6 would not be necessary in such a case.
If gender agreement is not removed, Art. 22.214.171.124-126.96.36.199 should also be deleted, or downgraded to recommendations, because these articles contain unnecessary and powerless restrictions. The Code provides no means to correct incorrect Latin names.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||11.5. should be slightly modified.
"must be used as valid for a taxon" - this term has lead to misunderstandings.
Example: Ephialtes argentina Schlegel, 1862 (Aves), available or not? Schlegel 1862 listed many owls in the genus Scops, and in a footnote to Scops brasiliensis cited an undecribed manuscript name as Ephialtes argentina, gave a short description and said that it was certainly different from Scops brasiliensis, without defining at which rank (species? variety? subspecies?) and without placing the name argentina in the genus Scops as one would have expected.
(Late this name argentina was only mentioned at 2 occasions, as pure names in 1869 and 1980, and is currently regarded as a senior synonym of another name. So this name only created problems, there was no consensus achieved concerning the availability of the name).
I would recommend not to regard such a name as having been made available at this occasion because (1) the context implied that Schlegel 1862 did not intend to use this name in his concept (in doubtful cases the generic name must not contradict the author's generic concept, the genus Ephialtes was not used at the time for this kind of species), and (2) any taxon used as valid must have an unambiguous statement concerning its taxonomic rank.
For (1) we had problems to understand the meaning of "correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgement" under the term "valid" in the Glossary (this could imply some interpretation of the context of a work), for (2) it would be helpful if Art. 11.5 was slightly more explicite, and perhaps illustrated by an example:
"To be available, a name must be used as valid for a taxon when proposed, its rank must be given unambiguously, either explicite or by context, unless it was..."
Example: In a footnote under the discussion of Scops brasiliensis (Aves), Schlegel (1862) mentioned a previously undescribed manuscript name Ephialtes argentina, gave a short description and said that it differed from Scops brasiliensis. Its rank (species, variety or subspecies) was not unambiguously determined, so the name E. argentina was not made available by Schlegel (1862).
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||A new passage should be added:
11.9.6. In cases of linguistical doubts any otherwise available name is to be regarded as an arbitary combination of letters.
Such a passage would solve problems like that of the specific name gradatim which would be unavailable because it was a Latin adverb and members of the iczn-list server were undecided on whether the name was available or not.