DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!! This page is automatically generated by PageComment macro.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-10-07 12:36:29 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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-10-07 13:06:15 11.6.1 should be more explicite. The complete lack of standards defined for this article is a really serious problem for malacologists. To 11.6.1 should be added: "An author adopting a name published originally in synonymy must 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, is not enough. The author must not add any doubts that both names belonged to the same taxon. The synonym must have been cited as a synonym of an available name, and like every new name it must also satisfy the requirements of Art. 12 and 13. The reference to an available name alone is not recognized as a description, definition or indication." The last passage is necessary because often it was unclear in which author's sense such available names were meant. In malacology we have a few important names originally published in synonymy (Poiretia dilatata is one of them) which would not be affected by these restrictions, and many unnecessary changes that would be avoided. The members of the Committee obviously did not know that we have many early and long lists of synonymy in malacology, that a high number of names used today could be found published much earlier if someone would explicitely look for, that this would seriously threaten the stability of many important names, and that names eventually corresponded to different species when they were actually described later.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-02-04 10:03:16 11.5.2 example Conus moluccensis, last passage should be replaced. "Küster (1838) applied the name to a taxon, gave a description, a figure and a bibliographic reference to Chemnitz, but not to Dillwyn 1817, thereby making the name Conus moluccensis Küster, 1838 available." 11.6.1. The example given under 11.5 (Conus moluccensis) can be extended to explain the use of 11.6.1 in the way I outlined above (7 Oct 2008). "Dillwyn 1817 cited the name Conus moluccensis as a synonym (and gave a bibliographic reference to Chemitz 1780), Küster 1838: 121 used Conus moluccensis as a name for a species, gave a description and a bibliographic reference to Chemnitz 1780, but not to Dillwyn 1817. The name was not be made available from Dillwyn 1817 by Küster's 1838 act, and any intent to adopt Dillwyn's 1817 name after 1838 is not effective.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-02-09 04:54:29 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).
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-04-03 16:39:07 11.9.1 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)." 11.9.1.1-11.9.1.4 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. 11.9.1.1-11.9.1.4 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.
,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2009-06-25 07:47:11
11.6
Another addition is necessary, containing a priority rule. Priority should be taken from the first author to have used the name for a taxon in a current classification ("used it as valid"). This is necessary to maintain stable nomenclature, so that if older synonyms were discovered much later, the established nomenclature will not be distorted.
"The synonym must have been validated by the first author who used the name for a taxon in a current classification. Any subsequent reference to the synonym will not be effective in the sense of this article, a synonym cannot be validated if the name had already been used by an author who had not referred to it."
Example: Rossmässler 1835 mentioned a name Helix squamatina as a snyonym for Helix cornea Draparnaud 1801 (non Linnæus, 1758) (Gastropoda). For (subjectively) 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 for the species must be taken from Moquin-Tandon 1855, although later authors might have referred to Rossmässler's name.
The problem with the need of a bibliographical reference would also be solved if it was made clear that Rossmässler's 1835 synonymous name and Moquin-Tandon's 1855 new name did not have the same type specimens, and so they did not objectively refer to the same taxon, so that the term "to adopt" could not be applied for this case. ,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-08-04 14:07:09 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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-08-04 14:09:43 11.6.1 "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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-01-02 09:13:03 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] [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. 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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-01-02 15:31:11 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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-01-07 01:26:36 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 - 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. 8 - 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. 9 - 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. 10 - 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 1853. Bielz 1853 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 1853. The name must be Clausilia marisi Pfeiffer, 1868, not Cl. marusii Bielz, 1853. 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.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-01-07 01:27:48 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 - 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. 8 - 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. 9 - 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. 10 - 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.