Article 68. Type species fixed in the original publication.
68.1. Order of precedence in ways of fixation. If one (or more) species qualifies for fixation as the type species in more than one of the ways provided for in Articles 68.2-68.5, the valid fixation is that determined by reference to the following order of precedence: firstly, original designation [Art. 68.2], then monotypy [Art. 68.3], then absolute tautonymy [Art. 68.4], and lastly Linnaean tautonymy [Art. 68.5].
Recommendation 68A. Citation of type fixation. If a species is qualified for fixation as the type species in more than one of the ways provided for in this Article, only the valid fixation need be cited.
68.2. Type species by original designation. If one nominal species is explicitly designated [Art. 67.5] as the type species when a nominal genus-group taxon is established, that nominal species is the type species (type by original designation) unless the provisions of Article 70.3 apply.
68.2.1. The expressions "gen. n., sp. n.", "new genus and species", or an equivalent, applied before 1931 to only one of two or more new nominal species originally included in a new nominal genus or subgenus, are deemed to be an original designation if no other type species was explicitly designated.
68.2.2. If, when a nominal genus-group taxon is established without explicit designation of a type species, one originally included new nominal species [Art. 67.2] is given the species-group name typicus, -a, -um or typus, that nominal species is deemed to be the type species by original designation.
68.3. Type species by monotypy. When an author establishes a new nominal genus-group taxon for a single taxonomic species and denotes that species by an available name, the nominal species so named is the type species. Fixation by this means is deemed to be fixation by monotypy, regardless of any cited synonyms, subspecies, or unavailable names, and regardless of whether the author considered the nominal genus-group taxon to contain other species which he or she did not cite by name, and regardless of nominal species-group taxa doubtfully included or identified.
68.3.1. If a new genus is divided into subgenera at the time its name is established, and if the nominotypical subgenus contains only a single species, that nominal species is deemed to be the type by monotypy of the new nominal genus.
68.4. Type species by absolute tautonymy. If a valid species-group name, or its cited synonym, originally included [Art. 67.2] in a nominal genus-group taxon is identical with the name of that taxon, the nominal species denoted by that specific name (if available) is the type species (type species by absolute tautonymy).
Example. The new nominal genus Aus Smith contains among its nominal species Aus xus (Brown); among the cited synonyms of the latter is the available name Bus xus aus Robinson. The type species of Aus is Bus aus Robinson, not Bus xus Brown.
68.5. Type species by "Linnaean tautonymy". If, in the synonymy of only one of the originally included nominal species [Art. 67.2] in a nominal genus-group taxon established before 1931, there is cited a pre-1758 name of one word identical with the new genus-group name, that nominal species is the type species (type species by "Linnaean tautonymy").
Example. The genus Castor Linnaeus, 1758 (the beaver) was established with two included species. In the synonymy of one of these species (Castor fiber) is cited the one-word name "Castor Gesner pisc. 185." Castor fiber Linnaeus, 1758 is therefore the type species of Castor by Linnaean tautonymy.
68.6. Fixation of type species with names cited as deliberately used misapplications or misidentifications by previous authors. See Articles 11.10 and 67.13.
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
Another candidate example for absolute tautonymy:
Villosa Frierson, 1927 (Bivalvia), type species Unio villosus Wright, 1898 by absolute tautonymy (villosus is an adjective).
Taken from the Index Rocroi file (MNHN Paris). Candidate because I did not check the original sources.
Another example at the limit of the definition of tautonymy: Odontostomus Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) is not a tautonym of Bulimus odontostoma Sowerby, 1824 (one-letter difference counts for genera, and odontostoma is not an adjective).
Another example for an incorrectly cited name of a tautonymous genus: Isogonum [Röding], 1798, borrowed from a specific name Ostrea isognomum Linnæus, 1758 which Röding cited incorrectly as "Isogonum" (and gave a bibliographical reference to Gmelin 1791 who had spelled the Linnean name correctly).
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||Art. 68.4 needs another minor modification
"If a valid species-group name" should be replaced by "If one valid species-group name"...
This exludes cases where more then one tautonymous names were originally included.
Example: The gastropod genus Rapa [Röding], 1798 was established with five species originally contained. For each one of species 1-4 the name Murex rapa Linnæus, 1758 was given as a synonym, for species 5 the name Murex rapa Gmelin, 1791 was given as a synonym (the Linnean name had been classified in the genus Bulla in 1791, and Gmelin established a new name Murex rapa for a different species). The type of Rapa was not fixed by absolute tautonymy because more than one tautonymous name was originally contained.
Example: Simroth (1902) established a new gastropod genus Phrixolestes and included two species. The type species was not explicitly designated in the original source, but in the figure captions for Phrixolestes adsharicus Simroth employed the term "n. g. et sp.", another new species was presented as "Phrixolestes ponticus n. sp.". P. adsharicus was fixed as type species by original designation.
It should also be clarified which term to use in cases of subsequent type designations when new replacement names were established.
Example: Laciniaria Boettger, 1877 (Gastropoda, not Laciniaria Hartmann, 1842) was established without type species fixed in the original source. Kennard & Woodward (1923) proposed Maesta expressly as a new replacement name and at this occasion fixed as type Clausilia moesta Rossmässler, 1839. The type was fixed for Laciniaria Boettger, 1877 by original (or by subsequent???) designation, independently of Kennard & Woodward's eventual intention to restrict the type to one of the two names.
Alternatively one could also classify the type designation as subsequent for Laciniaria and at the same time as original for Maesta. But in cases of conflicts it would be desirable to define one single mode of type fixation.
A type can also be fixed at the "second" occasion by absolute tautonymy (if Kennard & Woodward established a replacement name Moesta, and this was the specific name of an originally included species, then Laciniaria would get as type Clausilia moesta fixed by absolute tautonymy). If they designated another species as type and their name was Moesta, then we would have a conflict: original designation for Moesta, subsequent designation for Laciniaria, and absolute tautonymy for Laciniaria. This leads to the conclusion that the mode of type fixation must be the same for original and new replacement names.
An example should be given to explain which term should be used for names and type designations established in different simultaneously published works (by employing "when" and not "where" this epithet "original" seems to refer to the date and not to the publication or author who actually designated the type).
Example: the gastropod genus Afrodonta was established by Melvill & Ponsonby in 1908. In the following article in the same journal issue Godwin-Austin 1908 designated a type for it. The type was fixed by original designation by Godwin-Austin 1908.
This could also be called subsequent designation.
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||68.4 questionable cases should also be clarified.
If the species-group name was cited in an incorrect subsequent spelling, the tautonymy must be judged from its correct spelling.
Example: Boettger (1877) established a gastropod genus-group name Binodata and included four species without designating a type. One of the species was cited as "binodata Z." (Z = Ziegler, a shell dealer). This was an incorrect subsequent spelling of Clausilia binotata Rossmässler, 1836. The type was not fixed by absolute tautonymy.
Another option is to accept such a case as absolute tautonymy. This would prehaps cover more cases since taxonomists rarely verified the correct spelling of the type species when they accepted types by absolute tautonymy. If so, then the Article could be modified in this form:
If the species-group name was cited in an incorrect subsequent spelling which matched the genus-group name at this occasion, the nominal species denoted by the correct specific name is the type species (type species by absolute tautonymy).
|FranciscoWelterSchultes||68.4 needs a minor modification and more examples, I would also replace the theoretical example by a real example.
68.4 (...) If a valid species-group name, or its cited synonym, originally included [Art. 67.2] in a nominal genus-group taxon is identical with the name of that taxon (variant spellings under Art. 58 are accepted, adjectival endings of species-group names can replace each other), the nominal species denoted by that specific name (if available) is the type species (type species by absolute tautonymy).
Examples: The new nominal genus Succinea Draparnaud, 1801 contained among its nominal species Succinea amphibia Draparnaud, 1801; among the cited synonyms of the latter was the available name Helix succinea Müller, 1774. The type species of Succinea is Helix succinea Müller, 1774, not Succinea amphibia Draparnaud, 1801.
Scomber scombrus and Isognomostoma isognomostomos are not absolute tautonymy, the names are not identical. Iberellus (Balearica nov. subgen.) balearicus is absolute tautonymy because the adjective balearicus can be replaced by balearica. Anguilla angvilla would be absolute tautonymy because u and v are accepted as variant spellings under Art. 58.4. Lacerta iguana Linnæus, 1758 is not the type species of Iguana Laurenti, 1768 because Laurenti used the name Iguana delicatissima for the same species to avoid tautonymy, without mentioning Lacerta iguana as a synonym.
A passage should be added to specify to which cases Art. 68 should refer:
"The original publication in the sense of this Article is the publication in which the genus-group name was established."
The headline "Type species fixed in the original publication." seems to be a statement that this Article is not meant to refer to type species fixed in a subsequent publication (Glossary: original publication. (1) The work in which a name or nomenclatural act was first published. - this should refer to the publication where the name was made available).
For the cases of genus-group names which were originally established without species included, and to which species were added later in a subsequent publication, Art. 68 should not apply.
If yes (= if "original publication" in the sense of Art. 68 should include the subsequent publication in which the first species were added to such a genus-group name), then 69.3 should be deleted, because then "subsequent monotypy" would be redundant and entirely covered by "monotypy". I would not recommend this, instead I would recommend to add "subsequent absolute tautonymy" and "subsequent Linnean tautonymy" to Art. 69.