DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!! This page is automatically generated by PageComment macro.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-10-07 16:09:57 A new passage should be added: "72.7.1. 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 1: Salamandra maculosa Laurenti, 1768 (Amphibia) was obviously but not expressly established to replace Lacerta salamadra Linnaeus, 1758 to avoid tautonymy. Salamandra maculosa cannot be regarded as a new replacement name because of the lack of an expressed statement and because Lacerta salamandra Linnaeus, 1758 was not mentioned. Example 2: Helix obvia Menke, 1828 (Gastropoda) was listed without description or any other comments as an available name with a synonym Helix neglecta Hartmann, 1821. On the same page Menke listed a name Helix neglecta Draparnaud, 1801. From external evidence we know that different species were meant. Helix obvia cannot be recognized as a new replacement name for Helix neglecta Hartmann, 1821 non Draparnaud, 1801 because of the lack of an expressed statement. Such a passage is necessary because many names are regarded as new replacement names by various researchers. In these cases it is unclear which types should be taken. The term "expressly" in 72.7 is widely overlooked.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-10-20 04:43:25 72.4.1 A new passage should be added 72.4.1.2 If a species-group name was exclusively based on the description or indication of one or more distinct variants (e.g. by name, letter or number), the first mentioned variant in order of appearence provides the types for the main name, if not otherwise stated in the original publication. Examples: Férussac 1821 established Helix lenticula (Gastropoda) and gave a short description only for a subordinate variant [alpha]. The types for this variant constitute the type series for Helix lenticula Férussac, 1821. Draparnaud (1805) established Helix striata and listed 9 variants [alpha] to [iota]. In the collection all types are preserved, but they refer exclusively to the 9 variants. The name-bearing types for the name Helix striata are those of the variant [alpha]. Such a passage is necessary because in malacology we have numerous cases of names that were based exclusively on subordinate variants and nobody knows how to interprete 72.4.1 (for example Falkner 2000). The problem affects important and widely used names such as Xerocrassa cretica (from Férussac, 1821 or Pfeiffer, 1841?) or Caracollina lenticula (from Férussac, 1821 or Michaud, 1831?). Previous decisions by the Commission contradicted each other (Op. 336 and 1924 for Oxychilus draparnaudi, a name that was taken without problems from Beck, 1837 although it had no main description and was based exclusively on variants; Op. 1690 for Lindholmiola barbata which was not taken from Férussac, 1821 but from Férussac, 1832). It also makes no sense why a reference to a previously published description should make a name available (by indication), but not a reference to a simultaneously published description for a variant.
,0 SvenKullander 2009-02-16 12:37:56 Recommendation 72A should be deleted. I suggest to change the allotype entry in the Glossary to reflect that allotype is a deprecated term occurring in previous Codes
,0 SvenKullander 2009-02-16 12:42:18 72.1.3. Should be modified to get rid of "paratypes", because paratypes are not regulated by the Code although 72.1 seems to say so. New wording: "other specimens: those without a name-bearing function (paralectotypes [Arts. 73.2.2, 74.1.3]); see Glossary for definition)."
,0 SvenKullander 2009-02-16 12:50:30 72.4.5 can be deleted. After all any specimen can be designated neotype, and paratypes/cotypes/allotypes are not name-bearing and as such not regulated by this Code. They are purely taxonomic, and taxonomists can call them whatever they like, including not calling them anything. I think it is important to get rid of the paratype concept entirely, because there are indeed taxonomists and other biologists who somehow believe that paratypes have nomenclatural status and their treatment in the Code, whereas not providing such status mentions them in a way that you suspect there is some more firm statement elsewhere in this long difficult to read tractate. New wording: "72.4.5. When an author designates a holotype [Art. 73.1], then that action restricts the type series to that single specimen. Other specimens mentioned in the description do not have any nomenclatural status."
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-03-12 07:57:44 72.7 again. Should contain a cross-reference to Art. 13.1.3. This would be helpful because there is no proper chapter about new replacement names, so looking for the rules for new replacement names is a hard job.
,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2010-01-06 15:05:13
72.4.3
Should be more explicit or have examples, it is not clear where the limits for the term "cited" should be set. The early authors did not give collection numbers of holotypes when they mentioned a synonym. They eventually figured specimens, some mentioned where their material came from, others gave only very general lists of species deposited in museum collections. It is difficult to define the limit.
I would propose that pure lists of names of species present in a museum collection without restrictions to certain lots should not be recognized as citing specimens, but lists of specimens collected in a particular and well delimited expedition yes.
Setting the limit there would be useful because localities are usually extremely important in molluscs (it seems that most cases under Art. 11.6 occur in molluscs). I must admit that I tend to accept the term "cited specimens" much easier if localities were given. A short description ("bigger" or "striated") is usually much less useful and should not suffice.
Examples.
Rossmässler 1838 mentioned Helix sericea synonym Helix rubiginosa (Gastropoda) and argued that this synonym was only used for small specimens, and he gave a figure of such a specimen. Schmidt 1853 used Helix rubiginosa for a species and gave a bibliographical reference to Rossmässler 1838, making the synonym available under Art. 11.6. The specimen figured by Rossmässler is the holotype, other specimens in Rossmässler's collection were implicit, but not cited.
Férussac 1807 mentioned Cyclas lacustris synonym Cyclas ovalis (Bivalvia) and stated that he had material from Lot and Lot-et-Garonne. These would be the types if C. ovalis was validated later.
Strobel 1855 mentioned Achatina aciculoides synonym veneta (Gastropoda) in a report of a collection by C. Belloti in Lesina (= Hvar island, Dalmatia). Only Belloti's specimens from Hvar would be the types, should veneta have been validated later.
Menke 1828 mentioned Helix olivieri var. a synonym Helix parumcincta (Gastropoda), in a general list of species of his collection. No reference to particular specimens was given, and it is unclear which specimens were meant and from where they came from. Menke published a list of species, and did not cite particular specimens.,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-03-23 11:03:18 72.7 once again The confusion about the precise definition of the requirements which must be met for the presence of a new replacement name is broader than I had previously thought. Falkner & Proschwitz 2009: 173 (Heldia 5 (6): 171-177, two important western European malacologists and key coordinators of the CLECOM group) argued in a case where a new species had been described and 5 names from pervious sources were given in the synonymy, 3 of them with question marks, that regardless of the question marks (under reference to Art. 15.1) the new name must be considered as a new replacement name for one of the 5 synonyms. Since the author did not specify which synonym, this must by default be the oldest one of the five synonyms. The author of the new name had probably cited these names because he thought that these might be the same species, for future scientists to check. So Falkner & Proschwitz 2009 made up a new rule which said that any author who establishes a new name and cites an available name in the synonymy, for no matter which reason, establishes automatically a new replacement name for the synonym (and the new name would automatically adopt its types). The requirement of an expressed statement demanded in Art. 72.7 is not followed by these authors. In the early post-Linean insect literature I saw inumerous equivalent cases, where previous names were listed as synonyms of new names (the more so, tentatively with question marks). We must consider that the rules of precedence was not a binding convention until at least the 1840s. I also experienced that Russian and Ukrainian malacologists seem to follow Art. 72.7 strictly and do not recognise new replacement names on the absence of expressed statements. The best example is Xerolenta obvia (Menke, 1828), a well-known and widely distributed species in Europe, established as a new replacement name without expressed statement but with indirect evidence in the work itself, is recognised as an available name by western authors and the CLECOM group (who claim themselves as authorative for European mollusc nomenclature), but not by Russian and Ukrainian authors who use the next available name Helix candicans for this species. So what we have is obviously a case of which teams or regions in the world have more power than others. I would prefer to keep the rule in the strict form the Russians and Ukrainians authors interpret it, simply because this prevents arbitrary interpretations of the rules as published by Falkner & Proschwitz 2009.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-11-11 07:21:04 72.7.1 Many authors substituted specific names when they established new genera, in the obvious but never "expressed" intention to avoid tautonymy. These cases could be caught by an additional rule to say clearly that such names shall be regarded as new replacement names if a tautonymous name was mentioned at that occasion (this would not catch cases like Salamandra maculosa because the tautonymous name was not mentioned there). The rule would just say that the presence of an available tautonymous specific name in the synonymy would be decisive, regardless if this was the correct name or a misspelling. Example 3: Montfort (1810) established a new gastropod genus Imperator and included one species Imperator aureolatus, with description and a synonym given as "Trochus imperator Gmelin". The correct name would have been Trochus imperialis Gmelin, 1791. Under such a rule the last sentence would be: Imperator aureolatus was established as a new replacement name for Trochus imperialis Gmelin, 1791 because a tautonymous name was cited in the synonymy by Montfort 1810.
,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2013-05-18 18:32:15
72.4.1
The wording of the Article should be refined to avoid misunderstandings.
The term "included by the author in the new nominal taxon" could be interpreted in a form that the thoroughness of study or the time that elapsed between study or the act of writing a description would be a criterion. This was suggested by Doug Yanega in a discussion on the [Taxacom] listserver in May 2013 (type series of Homo sapiens).
I argued that only presence and absence can be a criterion, not thoroughness of study or the time between study and the act of writing down something.
In Art. 72.1.1 a different definition of the type series is given, which seems in contrast to the one given in Art. 72.4.1.
My proposal: to say "all the specimens on which the author bases a new nominal species-group taxon", and to align the definition with the ones given the Glossary ("type series") where this expression is also used.
The same applies to the French Code.
It would be useful to add an example to get this point clear and avoid misinterpretations in the future.
Example:
Linnaeus (1758) established the nominal taxon Sciurus vulgaris for the Eurasian red squirrel. All live and dead specimens of Eurasian red squirrels that Linnaeus ever saw before 1758 formed directly part of the type series. However only those for which a documentation is provided that Linnaeus actually saw the specimen, can be selected as lectotype.,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2013-08-27 09:45:09 72.4.1.2 My initial proposal from 20 Oct 2008 that the types should by default be those of the first variant in a list, is probably an unnecessary restriction. So perhaps better to have it in this form: 72.4.1.2 If a species-group name was exclusively based on the description or indication of one or more distinct variants (e.g. by name, letter or number), the type series includes the specimens referred to as distinct variants. An example of a case where the subordinate variants had names: Zieten (1830) established the gastropod name Paludina multiformis without description, with four figures representing four distinct subspecies: Paludina multiformis turbiniformis (Plate 30 Fig. 7), P. m. trochiformis (Fig. 8), P. m. intermedia (Fig. 9), P. m. planorbiformis (Fig. 10). The type series of P. multiformis consists of all specimens depicted in Fig. 7-10, and other collection specimens Zieten included at this occasion in P. multiformis.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2014-09-09 19:59:16 72.4.1 again Another case from the [iczn-list] mailing list from Sep 2014: Argilophilus marmoratus Eisen, 1893 (Annelida) was established with two subspecies, but without nominal subspecies, so it had no original types for the nominal species. In contrast to the molluscan cases, this name was made available under Art. 12.2.6, it was the only included species to a new genus.
,1
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2016-02-29 11:39:27
Art. 72.10
.
The criteria in Art. 75.3.7. could be applied for all primary types of newly established names. Proposal suggested in a discussion in Feb/Mar 2016 ("Holotypes for sale"), starting point was a sales offer on E-Bay that induced a debate if the conditions of 72.10 are fulfilled if in such an auction the person who pays most money for a type would not meet the requirements.