Chapter 1: Zoological Nomenclature

Article 3. Starting point. The date 1 January 1758 is arbitrarily fixed in this Code as the date of the starting point of zoological nomenclature.

3.1. Works and names published in 1758. Two works are deemed to have been published on 1 January 1758: - Linnaeus's Systema Naturae, 10th Edition; - Clerck's Aranei Svecici. Names in the latter have precedence over names in the former, but names in any other work published in 1758 are deemed to have been published after the 10th Edition of Systema Naturae.

3.2. Names, acts and information published before 1758. No name or nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758 enters zoological nomenclature, but information (such as descriptions or illustrations) published before that date may be used. (See Article 8.7.1 for the status of names, acts and information in works published after 1757 which have been suppressed for nomenclatural purposes by the Commission).

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

FranciscoWelterSchultes   Art. 3. should be modified.
"The date 1 January 1758" should be replaced by "31 December 1757".

Art. 3.1 should be modified.
(1) Clerck's work should be cited as "Svenska Spindlar" because the leading language of Clerck's book was Swedish, Latin was used as the second language.
(2) Clerck's work should be given with the date of publication 31 December 1757, Linnaeus's Systema Naturae, 10th Edition with the date 1 January 1758.
(3) the passage "Names in the latter have precedence over names in the former, but" should be deleted.

Art. 3.2 should be modified.
"No name or nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758" should be replaced by "No name or nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758 (except Clerck's Svenska Spindlar)..."

This leads to all publications prior to 1758 being not recognized as binominal, with Clerck 1757 as the single one exception.

On Clerck's book is printed the date 1757, which means that following the rules 31 Dec 1757 has to be seen as the nomenclaturally relevant date of publication. There is no need to begin zoological nomenclature with a confusion forcing 1757 to mean 1758, and to change historic realities in the spirit of the Soviet government.
There is a very basic rule in zoological nomenclature that the date for a name must always be the true date of publication as given in the work itself or as derived from secondary sources. There is no doubt that Clerck's work appeared in 1757, and Linnaeus 1758 referred to it many times in his 10th edition of Systema Naturae. There is no need to cause confusion among taxonomists and conflicts within the Code by unnecessarily deviating from this very basic rule.
In fact this article in its present version and the duplication of the 1758 year for spider names has immediately led to confusions after 2000, taxonomists became uncertain about which work - Clerck or Linnaeus - had priority (Case 3371, Opinion 2224 - a very chaotic decision in which the plural of a generic name was defined to be a family name and where an incorrect subsequent spelling for a genus was defined to be a new name; both actions were not necessary for maintaining stability).
Still today Clerck's spider names are frequently cited with the 1757 date, and zoology does not lose its face if this true date of publication for Clerck's work is officially recognized.
Arachnologists have good reasons to recognize this work as the one and only officially recognized binominal pre-Linnean work. The spiders were very accurately described and figured, and Clerck's 1757 work represents a very good example for zoological nomenclature. The leading language was Swedish, a modern language, and not Latin (which was a translation of the Swedish text in smaller font). In the 1750s more than 50 % of the zoological publications were published in a variety of modern langauges, Latin had already decreased down to 40 %. This book is a very special publication in zoological nomenclature, it deserves to be recognized as a little treasure in the light of its historical screen and significance, and not as something that has to be hidden away or obscured by a questionable method reminding similarly questionable methods applied in political contexts.
2009-10-20 15:00:01

Article3 (last edited 2009-04-27 12:42:11 by localhost)