Chapter 17: The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Article 81. Use of the Plenary Power.

81.1. Purpose and extent. The Commission has the plenary power [Art. 78.1], on due notice as prescribed by its Constitution, to modify the application of provisions of the Code to a particular case, if such application would in its judgment disturb stability or universality or cause confusion. For the purpose of preventing such disturbance and of promoting a stable and universally accepted nomenclature, it may, by use of its plenary power, conserve, totally, partially or conditionally suppress, or give a specified precedence to, or make available any name, type fixation or other nomenclatural act, or any publication, and establish replacements.

81.2. Guiding principles. In using the plenary power, the Commission is guided by the following principles although these do not limit its use of that power.

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   A new Art. 81.3 should be added.

"Art. 81.3. Undeliberate decisions published in Opinions. If the Commission published an Opinion and regarded availability of a name, gender, spelling, or mode of type fixation undeliberately (in passing by) as given, without having been aware of a problem or incorrectness concerning these issues, the treatment by the Commission is to be accepted as a decision under the plenary power."

Example. In Opinion 335 Cecilioides Férussac, 1814 (Gastropoda) was ruled to have been made available despite of having been published in a non-binominal work, its gender was regarded as feminine and its type species Buccinum acicula Müller, 1774 as having been fixed by monotypy. Type species by monotypy could not be applied because the work was not consistently binominal, so it is to be regarded as having been fixed under the plenary power. Feminine gender is to be regarded as having been fixed under the plenary power, setting aside Art. following which the genus would have to be treated as masculine.

I have some other examples to illustrate the need and usefulness for a rule.

In Opinion 573 Helix vivipara Linnæus, 1758 (Gastropoda) as interpreted under the plenary powers was regarded as type species "by original designation" for Viviparus Montfort, 1810. This was incorrect, Montfort 1810 designated Viviparus fluviorum Montfort, 1810 as type and listed Helix vivipara as a synonym. Type species is currently undecided, under such a new rule it would be Helix vivipara fixed under the plenary power.

In Opinion 344 (and repeated in Op. 1664) regarded Truncatella costulata Risso, 1826 (Gastropoda) fixed by designated by Lowe 1855: 217 as type species for Truncatella Risso, 1826. This was incorrect, Lowe 1855 designated Cyclostoma truncatulum as type species and listed T. costulata as a synonym. Type species under the new rule would be T. costulata fixed under the plenary power.

In Opinion 335 Helix planorbis Linnæus, 1758 (Gastropoda) was regarded as type species by absolute tautonymy for Planorbis Müller, 1774. This was incorrect because Müller had established the genus in 1773 without species included, and Müller 1774: 152 did not mention a name Helix planorbis. Type species under the new rule would be H. planorbis fixed under the plenary power.

In Opinion 336 Tellina amnica Müller, 1774 (Bivalvia) was regarded as type species  designated by Gray 1847: 185 for Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821. This was incorrect, Gray 1847 did not designate T. amnica as type for Pisidium, but for Pisum Megerle von Mühlfeld, 1811, of which Gray regarded Pisidium to be a synonym. Under the new rule T. amnica would have been fixed as type for Pisidium under the plenary power.

In Opinion 336 Helix Draparnaldi was fixed as an incorrect original spellling for Helix draparnaudi Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda). It was overlooked that the name had been established without description and that only two subordinate variants denoted by letters had descriptions. The Code does not provide a guide how to interprete such a case, and the community is undecided. Some regard such a name as available, others not. For the latter, H. draparnaudi should be regarded as having been made available under the plenary power.
2010-02-20 16:07:57

Article81 (last edited 2009-04-27 12:42:11 by localhost)