Article 33. Subsequent spellings.
33.1. Kinds of subsequent spellings. A subsequent spelling of a name, if different from the original spelling [Art. 32.1], is either an emendation [Art. 33.2], or an incorrect subsequent spelling [Art. 33.3], or a mandatory change [Art. 34].
33.2. Emendations. Any demonstrably intentional change in the original spelling of a name other than a mandatory change is an "emendation", except as provided in Article 33.4.
33.2.1. A change in the original spelling of a name is only to be interpreted as "demonstrably intentional" when in the work itself, or in an author's (or publisher's) corrigenda, there is an explicit statement of intention, or when both the original and the changed spelling are cited and the latter is adopted in place of the former, or when two or more names in the same work are treated in a similar way.
33.2.2. The correction of an incorrect original spelling in accordance with Article 32.5 is a "justified emendation", and the name thus corrected retains the authorship and date of the original spelling [Art. 19.2].
33.2.3. Any other emendation is an "unjustified emendation"; the name thus emended is available and it has its own author and date and is a junior objective synonym of the name in its original spelling; it enters into homonymy and can be used as a substitute name, but
22.214.171.124. when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the original author and date it is deemed to be a justified emendation.
Example. Because Helophorus, an unjustified emendation by Illiger (1801) of Elophorus Fabricius, 1775, is in prevailing use in the Coleoptera and attributed to Fabricius, it is deemed to be a justified emendation; the name Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 is to be maintained as the correct spelling.
33.3. Incorrect subsequent spellings. Any subsequent spelling of a name different from the correct original spelling, other than a mandatory change or an emendation, is an "incorrect subsequent spelling"; it is not an available name and, like an incorrect original spelling [Art. 32.4], it does not enter into homonymy and cannot be used as a substitute name, but
33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling.
Example. The specific name in Trypanosoma brucii Plummer & Bradford, 1899 is in prevailing usage but is spelled brucei; brucei is deemed to be correct and its use is to be maintained.
33.4. Use of -i for -ii and vice versa, and other alternative spellings, in subsequent spellings of species-group names. The use of the genitive ending -i in a subsequent spelling of a species-group name that is a genitive based upon a personal name in which the correct original spelling ends with -ii, or vice versa, is deemed to be an incorrect subsequent spelling, even if the change in spelling is deliberate; the same rule applies to the endings -ae and -iae, -orum and -iorum, and -arum and -iarum.
Example. The subsequent use by Waterhouse of the spelling bennettii for the name established as Macropus bennetti Waterhouse, 1837 does not make the subsequent spelling an available name even if the act was intentional.
33.5. Cases of doubt. In any case of doubt whether a different subsequent spelling is an emendation or an incorrect subsequent spelling, it is to be treated as an incorrect subsequent spelling (and therefore unavailable), and not as an emendation.
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
Again one more permanently disputed case in the discussion on the definition of the term "prevailing usage":
Páll-Gergely, B., Farkas, R., Deli, T. & Welter-Schultes, F. 2013. Plicuteria lubomirski (Ślósarski, 1881) (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Hygromiidae), a forgotten element in the Romanian mollusc fauna, with notes on the correct spelling of its name. - Folia Malacologica 21 (2): 91-97.
Lesicki, A., Proćków, M. & Magowski, W. 2013. On the spelling of Trochulus lubomirskii vs. lubomirski (Ślósarski, 1881) (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Hygromiidae) - the opposite point of view. - Folia Malacologica 21 (2): 99-103.
Cases like this one just give a small insight in a completely newly created field of research after 2000, and how much energy it costs to discuss the correct spellings of names until many colleagues from various different countries come to the conclusion that a name of an innocent species will remain under permanent dispute.
Another contribution to the discussion on the definition of the term "prevailing usage":
Hausdorf, B. 2012. On the spelling of some dedication names introduced by Strobel for south Alpine terrestrial snails (Cochlostoma, Charpentieria, Neostyriaca). - Journal of Conchology 41 (2): 259-262. London.
Hausdorf 2012 argued that unjustified emendations of three names established in 1850 were in prevailing usage under Art. 126.96.36.199 because they were used in the emended forms in 9, 7 and 17 publications in the past 50 years (and the correct forms were used in 0, 4 and 8 cases respectively, in the same period).
I think that a clear ruling in the Code would be needed to stop such a waste of scientific energy.
My proposal would be to align the conditions with those established in Art. 23.9.2 - not a single usage of the original spelling should be allowed in the past 50 years, at least 25 usages for the emended or incorrect spelling in the past 50 years should be given, each paper to be cited individually, and a definite ruling that after providing evidence for such a case the original spelling cannot become the correct spelling once again. In all other cases I would favour a clear ruling that the original spelling must be used.
For purposes of citations in nomenclators it would be useful to add a statement that an incorrectly spelled name mentioned as a synonym would not qualify for a status of an incorrect subsequent spelling. So it would be clear which source should be cited to have first produced an incorrect subsequent spelling. It is also implicit in this Article that unpublished names would not qualify for such a status either, but also this should be expressed explicitly.
Another aspect was overlooked and might cause confusion: by ruling that an unjustified emendation is an available name the provisions of Art. 11 could be regarded as being skipped; however Art. 33 is not included in the chapter where availability is ruled.
The question arises in those cases where an author regarded an emended spelling as more correct as the original spelling, but did not use that name for a taxon (not meeting the requirements of Art. 11.5). This provokes a conflict between Art. 11.5 and Art. 33.1 / 33.2.3.
An example is the gastropod genus Thylacodes, original name Tulaxodes Guettard, 1770, name emended to Thylacodes by Agassiz (1847) and Herrmannsen (1849), but those authors did not use that name for a taxon (name not mad available under Art. 11.5). Bieler & Petit 2010 (Malacologia 52 (1)): 185 regarded Thylacodes as a justified emendation under Art. 188.8.131.52.
The interpretation of this Article by Thomas Pape was documented in his mail to the [iczn-list] 14 April 2012. It might be used as a guide to improve this Article.
Intent can be demonstrated in three ways:
(1) ... when in the work itself, or in an author's (or publisher's) corrigenda, there is an explicit statement of intention
(2) ... when both the original and the changed spelling are cited and the latter is adopted in place of the former
(3) ... when two or more names in the same work are treated in a similar way.
These three ways work fully independently, and if one is fulfilled, you have an emendation. Let me give two entirely artificial examples and an explanation:
(1) "I herewith emend Stratiomya Macquart, 1838 to the correct orthography Stratiomyia".
(2) "I am here presenting a revision of Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838 (originally as Stratiomya)".
(3) This is a really tricky condition (the "Sabrosky clause"). As I dealt with this quite extensively in a recent monograph on Rondani Diptera genus-group names (O'Hara, Cerretti, Pape & Evenhuis  Zootaxa 3141: 1–268), I will cite from that work:
"We interpret “treated in a similar way” to mean any similarity (as perceived by us and explained for new synonymies) in spelling changes between two or more names irrespective of other changes that may also have been made to those names.
Only those spellings where an identical spelling has not previously been published, and subsequent usage of that spelling therefore is not possible, are considered eligible as emendations by way of a similar treatment (e.g., compare entries for Ceroxis and Strongigaster). This requirement of being a new (i.e., first) spelling change would pertain to both (or all) names that are “treated in a similar way”, but we have not made an exhaustive search for any previous use of a similarly changed spelling for the other name(s) involved when these are not Rondani names, as this would have been prohibitively time consuming.
Few workers have realized the significance of criterion 3, since this can include names that may previously have been recognized as incorrect subsequent spellings. However, if there are two or more names in the same work that are “treated in a similar way” they will both (or all) become emendations [i.e., available names]. Incidentally, it should be noted that the ICZN Code does not specify that these “two or more names” necessarily have to be of the same rank.
As a result, there are no doubt numerous uncataloged emendations in published papers of what were previously thought to be merely incorrect subsequent spellings that have escaped notice.
Also, it may not be possible to distinguish between a newly proposed emendation by means of criterion 3 and an acceptance of an earlier emendation or the usage of an incorrect subsequent spelling.
We have chosen to consider the earliest cases of such emendations through similar treatment as separate emendations; later homonymous changed spellings that fit criterion 3 whether by the same author or others are here considered subsequent usages as they essentially fit Article 33.5. For the present work we have listed homonymous emendations if they have appeared in the literature irrespective of the criterion under which they qualify as emendations.
Two additional issues relating to this is that an incorrect original spelling fixed by a First Reviser cannot become an emendation; and that it is possible for an incorrect subsequent spelling to become an emendation by criterion 1 or 2 but not by criterion 3."
(my own comments, Francisco, 03 May 2012)
"Only those spellings where an identical spelling has not previously been published"
- This implies that a similar interpretation may also be applicable in conditions 1 and 2 (emendation only if the same spelling had not been published before). To convert the present Article into a more useful guide, this thought could be directly inserted into the Article.
"there are no doubt numerous uncataloged emendations in published papers of what were previously thought to be merely incorrect subsequent spellings that have escaped notice. "
- This might potentially distort nomenclature and threaten current usage.
"it may not be possible to distinguish between a newly proposed emendation by means of criterion 3 and an acceptance of an earlier emendation .... "
- The earliest emendation should fix the status of a spelling as an emendation, and everything else should just be regarded as a subsequent use. This should be said directly inside the legal text of the Code. Recently there are trends to attribute authorships to subsequent uses of names, for example if a publication is regarded as sufficiently important and the concept for which a name is used, is slightly different from the original usage of a name. This should be discouraged as not being in line with the Code.
"or the usage of an incorrect subsequent spelling"
- This is the natural conflict between Art. 33.3.1 and Art. 33.2.1, which should be addressed explicitly in the Code. This has been overlooked in the 4th edition. The superior Article should be Art. 33.3.1, because under this Article the spelling always gets an earlier authorship. The same spelling would also be available under Art. 33.2.1, but with a younger authorship. Such an emendation should be defined not to be effective.
"and that it is possible for an incorrect subsequent spelling to become an emendation by criterion 1 or 2 but not by criterion 3"
- This interpretation would probably require an explicit statement in the legal text of the Code.
I set this up as a new Article because it treats the LAN problem from another perspective. Is the Code willing to provide rules how to behave if a spelling that is fixed in a LAN comes out of prevailing usage? If yes, then, well.
If not, then Art. 33.3.1 must get a restriction in the form of a new Article which would rule that this prevailing usage rule would not have to be applied for names fixed on the LAN.
should either be removed, as I proposed 20 Oct 2009, or completed in all aspects.
The issue was discussed in the [iczn-list] in April 2012. The basic problem was the status of availability of an incorrect subsequent spelling, not only in the present but also in the past, and its implication for the Principle of Homonymy.
The Trypanosoma brucei example is bad because the correct spelling brucei was officially fixed in Opinion 1484, I am using it here but it should be replaced in the 5th edition by a true or pure example.
1 - There must be a provision that defines a new name T. brucei established by Smith, not T. brucei Plummer & Bradford, 1899, as a junior homonym of the incorrect subsequent spelling which is in prevailing usage.
2 - There must be a provision that defines what to do if an incorrect subsequent spelling comes out of prevailing usage. Does it in the form this incorrect name is spelled, permanently remain an available name in the sense that Smith's new junior homonymous name T. brucei would permanently have to be considered as a primary homonym? I would say yes. Such a new name would lead to confusion anyway, because it would sound very much like the other species.
3 - There must be a provision how to behave with incorrect subsequent spellings that have been used in the past, and that were later replaced by the correct original spellings (or by other incorrect subsequent spellings). An example is the gastropod established as Helix folliculum Schröter, 1784, later known as Ferussacia folliculus/follicula/folliculum. All are nouns with different meanings, many people believed they were adjectives, the genus changed from time to time but was usually feminine (Helix, Achatina, Columna, Cionella, Glandina, Polyphemus, Bulimus, Pegea, Ferussacia). The correct name folliculum has not been used until 2011 (it might come into usage now, but nobody can predict this). Only the incorrect spellings follicula (30 % of the publications of the past 30 or so years) and folliculus (70 %) have been used. How do we have to determine which spelling was once in prevailing usage, and from when until when? Does a new name Helix folliculus or Helix follicula constitute a junior homonym of one of the previous names or not?
4 - If an incorrect subsequent spelling that has been used for a taxon is defined as a name/spelling to be considered for the Principle of Homonymy, how does this spelling have to be registered in ZooBank and LAN?
5 - Is the original spelling in such a case permanently invalid? If the spelling Helix folliculus (or T. brucei) is registered in ZooBank or LAN, am I allowed to establish a new name Helix folliculum (or T. brucii)?
The interpretation of this Article has been under serious dispute in the [iczn-list] mailing list in April 2012. This concerned mainly the second provision "when both the original and the changed spelling are cited and the latter is adopted in place of the former".
There were basically two directions to interpret this passage, one more literal (the presence both spellings would suffice) and one more restrictive (this would not suffice, it must be accompanied by a reference to the original source) or more arbitrary (it may be accompanied by a reference to the original source, but this might depend on every case individually).
Either way it is undesired that the Code is unclear in such an important point, the "arbitrary" interpretation seems to leave too much space for permanent disputes. The interpretation should be clarified. There were differences between the 3rd and 4th editions, which went in the direction of a more literal and less arbitrary interpretation (from "may" to "must"), suggesting that a clearer guide was desired, but nobody was able to get to know what the authors of the 4th edition had in mind when they modified this passage.
I would favour the more restrictive interpretation of Art. 33.2.1.
But if the term "to adopt" (undefined in the Glossary) is interpreted in a way that excludes adopting a spelling from the original source without explicit (by bibliographical reference) or at least implicit awareness of the original source, then the same interpretation should be applied in Art. 11.6.1 where we have the same situation: an author is meant to "adopt" a name from a previous source. Also here, it should not be possible to adopt something without evidence that the author knew it.
The French version should be correctly translated, the current text does not fit the English version.
It was also unclear what to do with incorrect subsequent spellings that have been in use for some decades, and which may be confronted with the situation that finally someone converted them coincidentally into an unjustified emendation. A restrictive interpretation would need an additional provision and not allow this to qualify for an emendation, because the name was already in usage, and as such, eventually available under Art. 33.3.1. A spelling of a name that is already available from the original source, canot be made available once again by a subsequent source that qualifies for the criteria of an emendation.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 33.3.1 again
12 years after this Article has been installed I see an ongoing trend that taxonomists who revised a group of animals and made a mistake in the spelling or another mistake concerning a name they used for a species, start arguing 5 years later that this name or spelling is now in prevailing usage and must be maintained. I would call this the abuse of an Article in the Code by people who don't like to admit that they made a mistake. These names or spellings quickly gain kind of a religious status, people think that they have the authority to determine which name or spelling should be used, and also people who decide which other taxonomists are worth to be considered and which ones not (in Western malacology Russian authors are usually totally neglected).
A clear and restrictive revision of the provisions (like in Art. 23.9.2) would help to clarify that this prevailing usage rule cannot be used for names that have not been used for various decades, and that have not been used frequently and by many (first) authors.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 33.2.1 could be modified.
It contains 3 provisions to define an emendation. It was suggested various times to remove the 3rd provision "or when two or more names in the same work are treated in a similar way".
See the discussions in the [iczn-list] mailing list 09 Dec 2008 ("Eemendations (Art. 33.2.1)") and in Sep 2011 "Subsequent spellings". It seems that nobody knows or remembers why this provision was included in 1985, and that it has created some confusion since then.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art 33.3 should be modified.
It is totally unclear and undefined where the limit must be set between a subsequent spelling and a new name. The Glossary is not helpful either. This is the more important since early zoological works rarely contained references to previous work were names were established. An emendation is better defined because there, both names must have been cited.
"33.3. Any name regarded as a subsequent spelling must have been used for subjectively (from the point of view of the author who used the name) the same animals as the original name. If deviating from the original spelling, the modification spelling must be of a minor degree, and the resulting name must not have a different meaning than the original name. A change in the gender of a genus-group name does not automatically create a new name, if used for basically the same species. Any subsequent spelling of a name different from the correct original spelling, other than a mandatory change or an emendation, is an "incorrect subsequent spelling"; it is not an available name and, like an incorrect original spelling [Art. 32.4], it does not enter into homonymy and cannot be used as a substitute name, but ..."
A number of examples should be added to illustrate the outlines of interpretation of this article, particularly the limit between a new name and a subsequent use of a name.
Examples: Margaritana Schumacher, 1817 (Bivalvia) is not an incorrect subsequent spelling for Margaritifera Schumacher, 1815, because the modification in the ending was not a minor change, both names have a slightly different meaning.
Recorded incorrect subsequent spellings with only minor changes in characters and endings for Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799 (Gastropoda) are Lymnaeus, Lymneus , Lymnoeus, Lymnea, Lymnoea, Lymnula, Lymnus, Limnaea, Limnaeus, Limneus, Limnoeus, Limnoea, Limneus, Limnea - but not Limnaea Poli, 1791 (Bivalvia) which was established for a different group of species.
Vitrea riedeliana Paget, 1976 (Gastropoda) is not an incorrect subsequent spelling for Vitrea riedeli Damjanov & Pintér, 1969 because it was explicitely established for a different taxon. This would have been different if the name V. riedeliana had been used for the same species without further comments.
I am still uncertain, maybe it is better to define the term "subsequent use" more above, in the sense I have outlined above, in Art. 33.1 "A subsequent spelling of a subsequently used name" - and include the definition there. Because the user firstly has to take the decision, are we dealing with a new name or a subsequent use?, and secondly to distinguish between emendation and incorrect subsequent spelling.
The term "subsequent use" should also be defined in the Glossary, but with a reference to Art. 33, the examples should be given here in Art. 33 and not in the Glossary.
should be removed, including the Trypanosoma brucii example.
The term "prevailing usage" is not defined (mainly because it would be almost impossible to give a definition). Any article in the Code should have a solid and well defined base.
The Trypanosoma brucii example is extremely bad because the correct spelling of this name was fixed by the Commission in Opinion 1484, so it cannot be taken as an example for a regular application of Art. 33.3.1.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 184.108.40.206. should be removed, including the Helophorus example.
The term "prevailing usage" is not defined (mainly because it would be almost impossible to give a definition). Any article in the Code should have a solid and well defined base.
The Helophorus example is extremely bad because the correct spelling of this name was fixed by the Commission in Opinion 1724, so it cannot be taken as an example for a regular application of Art. 220.127.116.11.