DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!! This page is automatically generated by PageComment macro.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-11-06 10:24:10 The arrangement of the terms in this glossary is not good. It should be sorted strongly alphabetically. Incorrect subsequent spelling should be listed unter I, available name under A.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2008-11-06 10:49:10 Subsequent spelling: this definition is absolutely not helpful for the zoologist who has to decide, what exactly is a subsequent spelling and what is not? Give a link to Art. 33.3, where the term should be well defined, see my comment there (recorded under Art. 34 because comments to Art. 33 cannot be placed due to a technical bug).
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-02-20 15:13:58 "validated, a. A term previously used in the sense of conserved." should at least be modified to: "validated, a. A term previously used (before 2000) in the sense of conserved." But (1) I think not the name was conserved (in the commonly used sense of this term), only its use was conserved (example Attacus Linné, 1767), and (2) that it might be better to say the term "validated" was used in the sense of "ruled to be available". I would like to propose to reinstall the use of the term "validated" and not to use the term "conserve" for the pure action of ruling a name to be available. (see also my comment under "conserve").
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-02-20 15:34:04 "conserve, v. To set aside or modify any provision of the Code so as, e.g. (1) to preserve or permit the use of a name as a valid name by removing the obstacles to such use" This is also applied to names which are unavailable under the provisions of the Code and which were ruled to be available under the plenary powers. The term "to conserve" is extremely misleading for these cases. I would propose to reinstall the term "to validate". "To conserve" means to keep, retain and protect something. Conserving an unavailable name would mean that its status would be fixed and never be changed any more. This is exactly incorrect because under the plenary powers the status of the name is changed from unavailable to available, which is the opposite of the literal meaning of "to conserve". One cannot even argue that by changing the status of availability the Commission retains the use of the name in applied taxonomies. The Commission has the power to make old names available which were never used before. It is extremely misleading to be forced to say that the name Trochulus Chemnitz, 1768 (from an unavailable work) was conserved in Opinion 2079, because there is nothing that was preserved or retained there. Trochulus was never used for the widely used genus Trichia Hartmann, 1840 (non De Haan, 1839). Trochulus was a completely new name that was installed in Op. 2079, an old name had to be found because no other name could have replaced Trichia, so neither its use in applied taxonomies nor its nomenclatural status was at any time preserved or retained. The term "validated" would fit much better here and be much more in accordance with its use in the common English language.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-03-16 10:42:34 "designation, n. (designate, v.) The nomenclatural act of an author or the Commission in fixing, by an express statement, the name-bearing type of (...)" It should be made clear that the "express statement" is not to be interpreted in the sense of "express statement of deliberate designation".
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-04-02 04:45:14 The terms "definition" and "description" need a more accurate definition like in Art. 12.3, because Art. 12.3 is only for names published before 1931 and its application for post-1930 names was unclear and disputed. Also, the term "characters" should be replaced by "character states" (see the proposal by Frank Krell to modify Art. 13.1.1 accordingly). definition, n. A statement in words that purports to give those character states which, in combination, uniquely distinguish a taxon [Arts. 12, 13]. The mention of any of the following does not in itself constitute a definition: a vernacular name, locality, geological horizon, host, label, or specimen. description, n. A statement in words of taxonomic character states of a specimen or a taxon [Arts. 12, 13]. The mention of any of the following does not in itself constitute a description: a vernacular name, locality, geological horizon, host, label, or specimen.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-06-25 09:45:50 "adopt, v. To use an unavailable name as the valid name of a taxon in a way which establishes it as a new name with its own authorship and date [Arts. 11.6, 45.5.1., 45.6.4.1]." See also my comment under 11.6. It should be made clear that "to adopt" must mean that the author who adopts a name knows that the unavailable name was previously published (which implies a bibliographical reference). Example: Moquin-Tandon 1855 used the name Helix cornea var. squammatina for a gastropod species without reference to a previous source, Rossmässler 1835 had previously used the name Helix squamatina as a synonym, both names had different types, so Moquin-Tandon did not adopt the older name although subjectively we know today that the same species was meant. This is a very frequent problem in molluscs where names were poking around on collection labels and frequently cited as synonyms decades before they were published with descriptions. It is the spirit of zoological nomenclature that always the earliest name that had a description must be used. This should not be distorted too much by Art. 11.6. A strict interpretation of the term "to adopt" would thus be helpful.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-07-01 10:17:01 add a new entry infrasubgeneric name. A name applied to an infrasubgeneric entity (section, division, Formenkreis etc.) [Art. 10.4].
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-07-07 12:40:25 The terms author, editor and publisher should be defined accurately and in accordance with its use in library environments, and also in accordance with its common use in scientific contexts. Current definition: "author (pl. authors), n. The person(s) to whom a work, a scientific name, or a nomenclatural act is attributed [Arts. 50, 51] (see also anonymous). For the purposes of the Code, if a work is attributed to an editor, or an official (e.g. Secretary), or a body (e.g. a committee or a commission), only that person(s) actually responsible for the work, name, or act, is deemed to be the author [Art. 50]." Proposal: author, n. (1) of a name: the person(s) made resposible by the provisions of Art. 50 and 51 for the textual contents of the original description of the name; (2) of a work: the persons(s) made responsible by the provisions of Art. 50 for having written the scientific content of a published text. In the case of works consisting almost exclusively of images (no other textual content than a title page, plate or figure numbers), the person(s) mentioned in the work itself for being responsible for the figures. editor, n. The person(s) responsible for compiling the material submitted by one or several authors and for preparing the arrangement of the scientific contents for publication. An editor can also be an author if being reponsible for having written text passages not referred to one of the other authors. publisher, n. The person(s) or legal entity responsible for converting the prepared manuscript into a printed work, and for distributing the printed copies. The publisher has also the economic responsibility.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2009-11-27 08:56:36 nomen nudum: definition should be modified. The current definition is not in accordance with what is currently understood under this term. In my understanding a nomen nudum is a binominal name that was published in a binominal work in Latin script, and that had no description. It can be used, using it does not make your own work to be classified as "not consistently binominal", but not much more. The current definition: "nomen nudum (pl. nomina nuda), n. A Latin term referring to a name that, if published before 1931, fails to conform to Article 12; or, if published after 1930, fails to conform to Article 13. A nomen nudum is not an available name, and therefore the same name may be made available later for the same or a different concept; in such a case it would take authorship and date [Arts. 50, 21] from that act of establishment, not from any earlier publication as a nomen nudum." Art. 12.1 and Art. 13.1 contain both a passage that a name "must satisfy the provisions of Art. 11" AND in addition must satisfy some other requirements (presence of a description etc.). If a name fails to comply with Art. 11 (for example because it is polynominal, or was published in a non-binominal work, or was not spelled in Latin script) and does conform to the other requirements of Art. 12 (for example by having a very accurate description), it is a nomen nudum within the above definition (because by not conforming to Art. 11 it automatically fails to conform to Art. 12 or 13). But this is not in accordance with the usage of this term in the taxonomic community. A polynominal name or a name that was not spelled in Latin script may *not and never* be later used for a taxon, and this is why the definition is incorrect. It should be modified: "nomen nudum (pl. nomina nuda), n. A Latin term referring to a name that, if published before 1931, conforms with Art. 11 and fails to conform to Article 12; or, if published after 1930, conforms with Art. 11 and fails to conform to Article 13. A nomen nudum is not an available name, and therefore the same name may be made available later for the same or a different concept; in such a case it would take authorship and date [Arts. 50, 21] from that act of establishment, not from any earlier publication as a nomen nudum." This is what actually was meant. Basically, a nomen nudum is understood as a name that has no description.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-06-02 12:03:09 new combination This entry should be deleted, the term "new combination" has no meaning in zoological nomenclature, it is nowhere else mentioned in the Code and leads to confusion. Its definition creates/implies the misunderstanding that the Code rules taxonomy, and that in zoology the first placement of a species in a different genus must be recorded and implies a nomenclatural act. This is not so. In zoological taxonomy anyone is free to combine a specific name with a generic name of one's choice, such actions are not recorded, and every such action is regarded as nomenclaturally independent from previous such actions. Based on this definition in the Glossary some use the abbreviation "n. comb." in zoology, in the erroneous belief that they create something official.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-06-02 13:07:15 synonym, n. Current definition: "Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon." This is not easily understood by many zoologists, even specialists have difficulties understanding what is meant here, and frequently come to different conclusions (as documented in a discussion on the Taxacom mailing list May/June 2010, on the question which definition should be used for the term "synonym" in the English Wikipedia site). The definition as such seems to be consistent with the concept of synoynmy in the Code, but misunderstandings were provoked by the term "names". Some regard various genus-species combinations (Felis uncia, Panthera uncia, Uncia uncia) as different names and thus as synonyms because the names are at the same rank, and because the specific name uncia alone is not a name. Most experts in nomenclature would argue that a synonym in the nomenclatural sense can either be a subjective synonym or an objective synonym, and that there should be no third class of synonyms involved, which would not be based on the types. I have two alternative proposals how to solve the problems by adding an explanation how to treat synonyms on the species-group level. "Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon. In the species-group, only the specific name is considered to judge the synonymy." or "Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon. Different genus-species combinations of a specific name are not considered as two or more names in the sense of this definition."
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-06-02 13:28:03 species name or name of a species. Current definition: "A scientific name of a taxon at the rank of species. A binomen, the combination of a generic name and a specific name (an interpolated name, such as a subgeneric name or an interpolated species-group name [Art. 6], when used, is not counted as one of the names in a binomen)." This definition should be improved, it is inconsistent and probably incorrect in the way most readers understand it. "A binomen" is not an integral part of the definition of a scientific name of a species, this passage should be removed. It is widely accepted that a combination Genus (Subgenus) species is a scientific name for a species (what else should it be? certainly not a vernacular name, and not a scientific name of something else than a species), but it is not a binomen. The terms "species name" and "binomen" are not equivalent, as is suggested in the current definition, "binomen" is a special case of a species name (= one that has no interpolated name). It is not necessary to mention the definition for "binomen" in this entry here. Proposal for an emendation: "A scientific name of a taxon at the rank of species. It consists of a combination of at least a generic and a specific name, and can also contain interpolated names, such as a subgeneric name or an interpolated species-group name [Art. 6]."
,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2010-06-07 15:20:41
character, n.
"Any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa."
This definition should be improved.
"Being present" is also an attribute. In the French Code the term "attribute" ("attribut" in French) is avoided and instead the term "élément descriptif" (descriptive element) is used. This expresses slightly better that such an attribute must be intrinsic to the described organism itself, but may still be debatable. Zoologists in the Taxacom mailing list (June 2010) argued that "clustering with another species in a molecular analysis" as such might also be an attribute in the sense of this definition, others seem to think that simply giving GenBank accession numbers are sufficient to satisfy Art. 13.1.1.
The best solution to express a clear ruling would be to provide a direct translation of the French text combined with mentioning the DNA question directly and explaining explicitly how this is ruled.
"Any descritive element of an organism used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa. Presence of differential DNA as suggested by cluster studies are not descriptive elements in the sense of this definition."
It might also be helpful to add this interpretation also in Art. 13.1.1, so that unexperienced users of the Code will find more quickly what they are looking for.,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-08-23 13:13:14 polynominal name. "A scientific name of a species in a not consistently binominal work [Art. 11.4.4.]. It usually consists of a genus-like name and two or more specific names used to denote a species (not a subspecies) which together do not represent or refer to a single entity [Art. 11.9.5, 32.5.2.2]." See under Art. 11, my proposal to add a new Article 11.4.4 in which the term "polynominal name" should be used.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-11-09 18:59:57 "homonym, n. (...) (3) In the species group: each of two or more available specific or subspecific names having the same spelling, or spellings deemed under Article 58 to be the same, and established for different nominal taxa, and either originally (primary homonymy) or subsequently (secondary homonymy) combined with the same generic name [Art. 53.3] or a homonym of it [see Art. 57.8.1]." Proposal to make this slightly clearer here, reference: discussion with Rich Pyle and other in the Taxacom mailing list, Nov 2010.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-11-09 19:31:19 synonym, n. "Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon. In the species-group, only the specific name is considered to judge the synonymy [Art. 48]." Art. 48 talks about species-group names, a cross-reference would be useful. If we resolve the expression "of the same rank" then we must read the current definition as "Each of two or more names of a species used to denote the same taxonomic taxon." - and this seems to contradict Art. 48 by which a species-group name is combined with a generic name to become part of a different combination, which implies that the species-group name would remain the same (and can, of course, not become a synonym of itself). Since the Code intends to rule nomenclature (otherwise we would have to specify "nomenclatural synonmy"), it should be correct to say that Panthera uncia, Felis uncia and Uncia uncia are different combinations of the same species-group name, but not synonyms in the nomenclatural sense.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2010-12-14 18:42:36 subordinate taxon. A taxon at a lower rank than the taxon of the same coordinate group with which it is compared. The term "coordinate group" remains undefined. A definition for this term should be inserted under "group".
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2011-02-17 18:40:44 nominal taxon (e.g. nominal family-group taxon; nominal genus). See under taxon. Delete nominal family-group taxon. taxon nominal taxon. A concept of a taxon which is denoted by an available name (e.g. Mollusca, Diptera, Bovidae, Papilio, Homo sapiens). The Code regulates the nominal family, nominal genus and the nominal species. A nominal genus comprises names of genera and subgenera. The terms "nominal genus-group taxon" or "nominal subgenus" have formerly been used. Each nominal taxon in the family, genus or species groups is based on a name-bearing type (although in the latter two groups such a type may not have been actually fixed). 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, the others should be replaced accordingly. See Art. 63 and 67.1.
,0
FranciscoWelterSchultes
2011-12-14 12:08:28
valid - should be modified
name, valid name - should be modified
"valid, a. (validity, n.) Of an available name or a nomenclatural act: one that is acceptable under the provisions of the Code"
The rest should be deleted: "and, in the case of a name, which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment."
The use of the term "valid" in the current definition is partly not in accordance with its common use in English standard dictionaries, it is confusing and should throughout the text of the Code be replaced by "in use for a taxon", "currently used for a taxon", "selected as the correct name used for a taxon" or likewise expressions.
I see also a confusing logical problem in the definition: in the Glossary's definition a name is valid if it is acceptable under the provisions of the Code. Among these are the important provisions of Art. 11.5.
In Art. 11.5 a name is available if it was used as valid for a taxon. This is circular reasoning.
In the French Code: Art. 11.5: "...employé comme le nom valide d'un taxon", this translates to "used as the valid name of a taxon". This means that in the French Code the definition for "nom valide" (in English "name, valid name") comes also into effect, making the situation once again more confusing.
A name is a valid name if it is used as a valid name.
A ticket is a valid ticket if it is used as a valid ticket.
A ticket controler in a train might eventually disagree with such a reasoning.
name, "valid name. The correct name for a taxonomic taxon, i.e. the oldest potentially valid name of a name-bearing type which falls within an author's concept of the taxon (but see under Principle of Priority)."
This definition does not sound bad, except that the term "valid" should not be part of the definition iself ("the oldest potentially available name" (or admissible name). But it is also very confusing as it seems to contradict the other definition and causes a conflict if a name that was used by an author for a taxon was not the oldest name among the synonyms (some authors did not like to use the oldest name because they thought that it did not sound good or was not appropriate). In other cases previously established names were regarded as unavailable under contemporary conventions, but are available today (for example if authors thought that absolute tautonymy was not allowed and proposed substitute names for species). So, were these names used as valid? In the French Glossary a direct reference to Art. 23.1 is given, in the English Glossary not.
My proposal is to modify the terms used in the important Art. 11.5 and to align them with an English standard dictionary language (for example by using the term "correct"). And to align the French Code appropriately.,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-02-21 17:35:51 "name, available name. A scientific name applied to an animal taxon that is not excluded under Article 1.3 and that conforms to the provisions of Articles 10 to 20." Should be slightly modified: the term "scientific" should be removed. This term creates the misunderstanding that availability refers to both genus and species in a binominal name, with the misleading and incorrect result that a new specific name combined with an unavailable generic name is not made available. The problem was discussed in a long thread "validation of taxon names" in the [Taxacom] mailing list around 21 Feb 2012.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-11-01 20:24:46 reference, bibliographic - this entry needs a more precise definition: reference, bibliographic, n. A published citation referring to a publication. A pure author/year combination or an author's name alone constitutes such a reference only if it was specified with more precise bibliographic data in the work itself (for example by an abbreviation of a book title or a page number, or a reference in another part of the work for the purpose of linking such an author/year combination to a determined published work). The name of an author (and eventually a date) behind a taxonomic name alone (without additional bibliographic data in the work itself) is not a bibliographical reference in this sense, except if the style of the work clearly allows this interpretation (for example if every single author-year combination in the entire work had corresponding titles in a bibliography section) - even if it is known from exernal evidence that the author published only one work in that year, or in his or her whole life, or until that date. This addition seems to be necessary because when the rules of the Code were written this was done by trained scientists who knew exactly what they were talking about when they employed such terms. The recent trend is that scientists need to know much more precisely what was initially meant when such terms were employed. A discussion at the [Taxacom] listserver in Oct 2012 reflected these problems. The result is that taxonomists, indexers and nomenclators are beginning to deviate from the initial concepts and apply different self-made definitions. Some say "L." is a bibliographic reference if it is clear to the insider which work was meant, others do not apply such an interpretation. The availability of names under Art. 12.2.1 depends on this crucial point, so it is necessary to fix the interpretation. My suggestion is to take the term "bibliographic" for serious, and define the difference to the citation of persons in their role as authorities. Example: "Pomatia ilenaria - H. pomatia L." Mentioned in a long list of names without more information - was this name Pomatia ilenaria made available at this occasion? Surely not, because it had no description and only a synonym was cited with it, so it did not meet any of the requirements of Art. 12.1 and 12.2. With the "new" interpretation of a bibliographic reference people can start arguing that "L." referred to the description provided by Linnaeus 1758: p. 771, and that Pomatia ilenaria was made available under Art. 12.2.1. Many thousands of names mentioned in catalogues and other pure lists of names would have to be revised and aligned with this new interpretation. The result would be a desaster. The author behind a taxonomic name has always been set there in the intention to refer to the authorship responsible for having established a name under the conventions used at the time, and the date is usually meant to refer to the true date when the name was established. Both are not necessarily bibliographic data (authorships before 1905 were often taken from unpublished sources), and were not given in the sense to provide a precise bibliographic reference.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2012-11-30 13:03:05 A new term is needed, I propose alternate name In the AnimalBase team we have used this term to express that two or more names were used at equivalent validity in a publication. The Code has no term for it, but in the analysis of old literature sources it is often necessary to use a term for the phenomenon and it would be useful to have a standardised expression for it. Taxonomists often tend to ignore the alternate nature of naming animals in early literature, which are often quite chaotically arranged. The Latin terms "seu", "vel" or "sive" are often used. The concept of an alternate name should also include a provision on objective synonymy if the two names were new. This would correspond to common practice. Without such a provision the two names could be regarded as different taxa if they were based on more than one name-bearing type specimen (because a subsequent author could select syntype 1 as lectotype for name A and syntype 2 for name B). Examples: In a Danish publication Schumacher (1815) cited a species as "Scrobicularia calcarea eller Mya orbiculata Spengler". The term "eller" (= or) indicated that both names were regarded as correct names, and that Schumacher did not intend to take a decision which one should be preferred. Both were alternate names used for the same taxon. At the same occasion a species was cited as "M[argaritifera]. fluviatilis eller Unio margaritifera Retzii". Also these two names were intended for usage as alternate names. Wagner & Spix (1827) established various new names for molluscs in a work that was subdivided among the two authors, and in which each one of the two authors used his own classification. In the plate explanations the new names given to the same species by Wagner and by Spix were listed as alternate names without preference for any of the two. These names were proposed for the same taxa as alternate names and were objective synonyms. In either case the First Reviser had to decide which one of the two new names had precedence. In some cases (example Aucicula signata Wagner, 1827 and Auris signata Spix, 1827) this First Reviser decision concerned only the original genus and the authorship.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2013-02-19 17:58:04 character, n. "Any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa." It would be useful to add another short statement (next to the DNA clarification mentioned above): "Vernacular names, localities, geological horizons or hosts are not characters in the sense of this definition." It has repeatedly been argued in discussions that a locality could be considered a character (example: [Taxacom] listserver, Feb 2013). To avoid confusion it would be useful to clarify this point directly in the legal text of the Code, as it is done in Art 12.3 (this Article covers only names established before 1931, so the discussion is usually about names established after 1930). It might be helpful to add this point also in Art. 13.1.1, so that unexperienced users of the Code will find more quickly the answer to this frequent question.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2013-05-18 18:43:36 type series, n. The reference to Art. 73.2 should be removed from the first sentence because this Article does not contain any contribution to the definition of the type series. Art. 73.2 works with this term, but does not define it. Art. 72.1.1 contains a slightly different definition for the type series (see my comment under Art. 72). This Article should either be cited in the Glossary, or removed from Art. 72.1.1 to avoid misunderstandings. As Thomas Pape remarked in a discussion on the [Taxacom] listserver in May 2013, Art. 89.1 gives precedence to the Glossary's definition, so currently the definition in Art. 72.1.1 should not be taken into account. Something that "should not be taken into account" can be removed from the Code.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2013-10-16 10:32:46 aberration, ab., n. A cross-reference to Art. 45.6.2 should be added to find quickly the corresponding passage in the Code. This was suggested in a discussion in the [iczn-list] mailing list in Oct 2013: "A term used to denote a class of individuals within a species. A name which explicitly refers to an aberration unequivocally treated as an infrasubspecific entity (q.v.) is unavailable [Art. 45.6.2]." It was also noted that the content of this definition and the text in At. 45.6.2 deviate slightly from each other. This could also be improved.
,0 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2013-10-16 10:38:29 A new entry could be useful: morph, n. A term used to denote a class of individuals within a species. A name explicitly proposed for a morph refers to an infrasubspecific entity (q.v.) and is unavailable (Art. 45.6.2). This would correspond more or less to the entry for "aberration". The definition used by myself here could also be taken for the term "abbreviation".
,1 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2016-01-05 19:30:22 spelling . It would be useful to have a Code official term for an incorrect original spelling that has been corrected. It is neither a correct original spelling, nor really a correct subsequent spelling, nor an incorrect subsequent spelling. Maybe the term "corrected original spelling" would be appropriate.
,1 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2016-01-09 17:03:26 specimen, n. . In the common sense this is one single object, something that can only be separated by a process that destroys the composed total. One crustacean carapax, one shell, one tissue sample, one bone, one feather. Two separate bones would be two specimens. However this term was not applied in this sense in Cases 3564 and 3623 (14 separate bird feathers were regarded as a holotype). If "specimen" should mean "all parts of an individual animal" or "all parts of which an individual animal was composed at a certain time", this should be expressed in the Glossary, because it would not be in line with common usage. Two separate bones can be sent to and deposited in two different museums, they would not be one single specimen. See also under holotype.
,1 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2016-01-09 18:10:15 holotype . The French edition gives a reference to Art. 73.1. There it says "one specimen, and only one". A definition for the term "specimen" is needed, because this seems to be either frequently misunderstood, or understood in a different sense than in common usage. It might be useful to research what has commonly be understood as a holotype in various different animal groups. A set of various separate bones, for example of a geological excavation, is considered either as a set of various specimens, of which only one single bone is selected as holotype (example: Australopithecus deyiremeda Haile-Selassie et al., 2015), or as an articulated skeleton, which consists of various bones, but is also often desigated as a holotype of a vertebrate. The whole forms an individual. Maybe this expression would be helpful. Are 14 separate feathers one single specimen, and only one? Or are they 14 specimens? See also "specimen", and Art. 73.1.5 that talks about a holotype that can consist of a set of components.
,1 FranciscoWelterSchultes 2016-03-09 19:36:13 new substitute name . The difference between a new substitute name and a new replacement name should be explained. A new substitute name can either be a new replacement name or a regular new name that can be used instead of the invalid name. Such a regular new name can eventually be an objective synonym, given that the author, when establishing the new name, does not indicate the intention to replace the name for nomenclatural reasons (lack of an expressed statement, so that the requirement "expressly" is not met).