DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!! This page is automatically generated by PageComment macro.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-10-07 13:53:44 Some more examples should be added to 67.5: "The genus-group name Armenica Boettger, 1877 (Gastropoda) was established as a section of Clausilia (Oligoptychia) for seven species under the headline "Gruppe der [= group of the] laevicollis", a term for which Armenica was proposed as a synonym. Clausilia laevicollis was not designated as the type at this occasion. Kobelt 1904 (Iconographie) explained explicitely that he did not agree with the type species concept as proposed by Dall (Nautilus 17: 114) (who had basically defended the concept and meaning of types of the present-day Code). The mollusc species listed as "Typus" by Kobelt 1904 (for example for Monterosato's generic names) cannot be regarded as type designations in the sense of the Code. This however does not affect other publications by Kobelt which lack such explicite statements. Herrmannsen 1846 listed many mollusc genera and gave types for them. For some genera Herrmannsen listed two or more species as types. This does not make his other type designations invalid. Causa Shilejko, 1971 (Gastropoda) was established as a "monotypic genus with one species" Helix holosericea Gmelin, 1791. This statement is regarded as original type designation." These examples will help European non-marine malacologists to correctly identify types of approximately 10-20 % of the currently used generic names, their type designations would otherwise be continuously debated.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-10-07 16:02:47 67.8 should be more explicite regarding the conditions to be met for recognizing a name as a new replacement name. "If a genus-group name is expressly proposed as a new replacement name for an unavailable name, or for a different interpretation of a previously established name, then the name is available as a simple newly established name." Example 1: Aegopinella Lindholm, 1927 (Gastropoda) was expressly established as a new replacement name for Polita Held, 1838, and Lindholm claimed that its type species was Helix pura Alder, 1830. Polita Held 1838 is an available name with a different type species designated at a previous occasion, and had no senior homonyms. Since there was nothing to replace, Aegopinella Lindholm, 1927 is to be regarded as a new name with its type species Helix pura Alder, 1830. If Polita Held, 1838 had been a junior homonym of an older name Polita, then Aegopinella would have been a new replacement name and its type would have been Polita's type, regardless of Lindholm having mentioned as type Helix pura. Example 2: Coryna Westerlund, 1887 (Gastropoda) was established for 7 species of Argnidae, and mentioned that Hartmann 1841 had used the name Sphyradium for a member of this group, not in the sense Sphyradium Charpentier, 1837 had been used in the 1880s (Orculidae). Pilsbry 1922-1926 argued that Westerlund had established Coryna a new replacement name for Sphyradium Hartmann, 1841 non Charpentier, 1837. This view is not tenable, Hartmann just used Charpentier's name in the sense this name had been used in the 1840s, Hartmann did not establish a new name, and Westerlund 1887 could not have established a name to replace Hartmann's 1841 interpretation of Charpentier's 1837 name. This passage is necessary because it is always unclear what to do with names that were established as replacement names but not truely based on names to be replaced. Some researchers think they must then be unavailable.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-10-07 16:05:51 A new passage should be added. "67.8.2. A new replacement name must be accompanied by an expressed statement that defines it as a new replacement name. The substituted name must be mentioned, and it must be clear from the contents why the name needed to be substituted." Example: Cossmann 1889 gave a summary of a work written by Sacco 1888 and listed his new species, among these was Pupa (Coryna) proexcessiva Sacco, 1888 (Gastropoda: Argnidae). Cossmann must have seen that Coryna Westerlund was a junior homonym of Coryna Bosc, 1802 (Cnidaria), Cossmann simply replaced that name and listed Sacco's species without any comment as Pupa (Argna) proexcessiva. Argna Cossmann, 1889 was not established as a new replacement name because of the lack of an expressed statement and because the name Coryna was not mentioned. Argna was a new generic name with its type species Pupa proexcessiva Sacco, 1888 fixed by monotypy. Such a passage is necessary because Argna and many other names are regarded as new replacement names by many researchers, in the case of Argna with different type species. The term "expressly" in 67.8 is widely overlooked.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-03-03 04:09:00 67.5 We seem to have a problem with inconsistent and controversial applications of standards concerning acceptable original and subsequent type designations. In my example from Herrmannsen 1846 I proposed to recognize type designations where the term "type" or "typical species" was literally used, regardless of the presumed true concept and meaning of the term "type" applied by the author. Many taxonomists seem to disagree in this point, and think that only those type designations should be accepted where the term "type" or "typical species" was meant in the sense of the present-day Code conform interpretation of these terms. I think this should be ruled explicitely in the Code. Either the Code should recognize the literal terms as acceptable regardless of the authors' concept (I would exclude those situations where we have expressed contrary statements in the publication itself, like Kobelt 1904), or only those type designations should be regarded as acceptable where the authors applied the term "type" unambiguously in the sense of a unique name-bearing type species determining the identity of the genus. The last would then exclude type designations by Montfort 1810 and others from before the 1840s, because these ideas had not come up before.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-07-21 03:54:57 67.14: the example should be modified. Cercaria O.F. Müller, 1773 should be replaced by Cercaria Müller, 1773. It is the only example in the Code where initials of first names are attached to an author in a name of a taxon. Names should be consistently spelled without initials of authors.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-08-18 15:04:29 Art 67.2.5 The meaning of this Article should be clarified by an example, because only insiders know how to interprete the term "nominal species". Example: Ortiz de Zárate y López 1949 established a new subgenus Mengoana for a well-studied species from N Spain presented under the name Helix brigantina Da Silva Mengo 1867 (Gastropoda), used in an interpretation by Kobelt 1878. The author stated that the original name could probably have referred to another species from Portugal, contrasting Kobelt's interpretation of the name. Today we know that Helix brigantina did indeed refer to the Portuguese species, and that Ortiz de Zárate y López used this name as a deliberate misidentification to establish a new genus. The nominal species was not doubtfully included, because the author made unambiguously clear that this species should be included in this subgenus, although the author had expressed doubts on the correct use of its name brigantina.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-01-13 15:10:41 67.2.1 One passage should be added: "Available names cited as synonyms are also eligible (except if monotypy applies, see Art. 68.3)." It would be useful to have a clear statement on this point in the Code.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-10-22 09:31:07 Art. 67.6 should be amended. 67.6. Fixations using incorrect spellings or unjustified emendations. If the name of a type species, when fixed, is cited in the form of an incorrect spelling or an unjustified emendation, it is deemed to have been cited in its correct original spelling (see also Article 69.2.1). If the genus-group name for which the type species is fixed, is cited in the form of an incorrect spelling or an unjustified emendation, it is deemed to have been cited in its correct original spelling (see also Article 69.1.3). For my proposal to amend Art. 69.1.3 see under Art. 70 (because of the CouldNotLock error in Art. 69).
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2011-10-04 09:43:13 Art. 67.2.3 should be slightly modified. 67.2.3. Mere reference in the original publication to a publication containing the name of a species does not by itself constitute an express reference of a nominal species to a nominal genus. If the genus-group name was exclusively based on one or several species clearly included by bibliographic reference [Art. 12.2.5], then these species are deemed to be the originally included species. Example: The gastropod genus-group name Papillifera Hartmann, 1843 was established without description and was only made available because a bibliographical reference was provided to a list of species published by Pfeiffer (1841), containing seven nominal species. These seven species are deemed to be the originally included species. This case was discussed in the [iczn-list] mailing list in Oct 2011. It was considered as an unintended gap in the Code (it makes no sense to regard a genus as available because species were included, and in the next Article say they were not originally included).
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-06-07 12:44:35 Art. 67.7 Should be modified to include this point: "An incorrect citation of a type species, whether or not originally included, does not establish a new genus-group name." It would be necessary to give a statement that incorrect citations or incorrect attributions of authorships cannot be interpreted to serve as new names. This seems to be a recent trend, to skip the provisions of this Article, and to regard the incorrect citations as new names, and to attribute new authorships for them. The result is the new phenomenon of homonymous synonyms. This was the subject of a discussion at the [Taxacom] mailing listserver in June 2012. It would be useful to have a clear statement that the decision, new name or not, cannot be taken by the author who subsequently used a genus and cited an incorrect type species for it. This must also and expressly apply to modern publications. See my comment under Art. 61.1.3 (saved under Art. 62 because of CouldNotLock error). Example: Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955 (Actinopterygii: Ambassidae), subsequently used and intentionally established as new by Boeseman in 1957 who did not know that the name had already been established in 1955. Boeseman 1957 designated a different type species. Both type species were considered congeneric by both authors. Boeseman 1957 did not establish a new genus, the statement "new genus" was incorrect and the type designation invalid. The other side of the limit should also be shown. The butterfly names Argus Scopoli,, 1763 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Polyommatinae), Argus Scopoli, 1777 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) and Argus Gerhard, 1850 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Theclinae) are separate names because the authors who established them, did not use them in the sense of the concept they applied for the previously established name. If all butterflies are classified in one single genus Papilio, the three names become homonymous synonyms at the generic level. The same would apply to Argus Scopoli, 1763 and Argus Gerhard, 1850 if all lycaenids would be classified in the same genus.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-08-21 19:28:54 Art. 67.2.3 We can add another example: Delima Hartmann, 1842 was established without description and without species included, but with a bibliographical reference to a source with three nominal species. Delima was thus made available only under Art. 12.2.5. Pfeiffer (1848) designated as type Clausilia laevissima, one of those three species.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-10-24 05:38:42 Art. 67.5 More (and real-life) examples should be given to illustrate the exact meaning of this important Article and to make sure that all taxonomists apply the rule in the same form. Examples: "I propose the genus Mexicodiscus for Pyramidula victoriana Pilsbry, 1904" - this is not an original type designation. Boettger (1877) established the gastropod genus-group name Clausilia (Euxina (Galeata)) for a number of species which were called "Gruppe der Schwerzenbachi" (= group of the schwerzenbachi), containing originally Clausilia schwerzenbachii Pfeiffer, 1848 and Clausilia galeata Rossmässler, 1839. Clausilia galeata was fixed at this occasion as type species by absolute tautonymy, the indication "Gruppe der Schwerzenbachi" did not constitute a valid type designation.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-10-24 05:42:36 Art. 67.1 could be modified. "Name-bearing types. The name-bearing type of a nominal genus or subgenus is a nominal species-group taxon called the "type species" [Art. 42.3]." A discussion on the [iczn-list] mailing list in Feb 2011 revealed that the present wording created the possible misunderstanding that if a type species is classified as a subspecies, the genus may lose its identity. Alternatively, the Glossary could define "nominal taxon" better, in accordance with its usage here and in Art. 63. See Glossary. It seems to me that "nominal species", "nominal species and subspecies" and "nominal species-group taxon" is the same. The Code should consistently use only one expression.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-10-24 05:46:31 Art. 67.5 More (and real-life) examples should be given to illustrate the exact meaning of this important Article and to make sure that all taxonomists apply the rule in the same form. Examples: Pilsbry 1926 established the subgenus Mexicodiscus "for Pyramidula victoriana Pilsbry, 1904". This was not an original type designation, the type species was fixed by monotypy at this occasion. Gray (1850) established a gastropod subgenus Laoma and regarded a particular specimen as the type of the subgenus. This was not a valid type designation of the nominal species Bulimus leimonias in which Gray classified this specimen. Boettger (1877) established the gastropod genus-group name Clausilia (Euxina (Galeata)) for a number of species which were called "Gruppe der Schwerzenbachi" (= group of the schwerzenbachi), containing originally Clausilia schwerzenbachii Pfeiffer, 1848 and Clausilia galeata Rossmässler, 1839. Clausilia galeata was fixed at this occasion as type species by absolute tautonymy, the indication "Gruppe der Schwerzenbachi" did not constitute a valid type designation.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-11-07 17:13:37 67.13.1 The term "in the sense of a misidentification or misapplication by an earlier author" should be replaced by a more appropriate term (an author as such cannot be "early"). Perhaps better "in the sense of a misidentification or misapplication published in a previous work or simultaneously by a different author". Example for "simultaneous": In an article authored by Vignon & Ancey (1888), Vignon published a list of species among which was a gastropod species identified as Bulimus exaratus (Müller, 1774). In a footnote on the same page Ancey remarked that Vignon had misidentified Buccinum exaratum Müller, 1774, Ancey gave a short description for Vignon's species and classified it in a new genus Eutaxis, which only contained this species. By this action Ancey established Eutaxis exaratus Ancey, 1888.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-12-06 09:38:39 Art. 67.8.2 (as previously proposed) One more example could be added: Schumacher (1817) established a new name Subula for a gastropod, together with a French scientific name alène and explained that he regarded this name as more appropriate than Bruguière's name vis. The name vis was a French scientific name proposed by Bruguière (1792, true date 1789), an equivalent of the Latin scientific name Terebra proposed by Bruguière in 1789 at the same occasion. Subula Schumacher, 1817 was not established as a new replacement name for Terebra Bruguière, 1789 because Schumacher (1817) did not cite this name.