quiz (taxonomy)

Fri Nov 20 16:25:08 CST 1998

Doug,

I think that you really have a problem. If the Macquart's species is the
type species of both a genus and a family you should not declare it neith=
er
as species inquerenda (see aticle 67h in The Code, 67.2.5 in the new
edition) or as species dubium. It is simple: we can or should not establi=
sh
a name, that is supposed to be stable, based on a declared doubt. I think
that the option is to use the name of Macquart to one of the species,
pointing out that this name usage might be wrong. If you really need to
clarify all this mess, you can designate a neotype, but... To designate a
neotype you have a number of restrictions (again, see The Code, article 7=
5),
and in some rare instances you will need to ask directly to the ICZN for =
a
decision on this problem. If you reach this point, then you will have to
prepare a petition, reasoning and proving that it is necessary designate =
a
neotype. Types of Macquart are supposedly housed in Paris, I believe, and
you will need to be sure that the type has really vanished or become dust=
,
maybe paying a visit to the MHNP. Keep in mind that the ICZN is very prud=
ent
when dealing with neotypes, as there are many cases of a type rediscover
after a neotype designation.

In such cases I always remember the wise words of a colleague: if it is n=
ot
broken, don't fix it and keep it clean, avoiding the mess

Servio Tulio P. Amarante
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de S=E3o Paulo
Caixa Postal 42 694
04299-970
S=E3o Paulo, SP
E-mail: serviopa at usp.br
FAX: 5511 274 3690 Tel: 5511 6160 0222
BRASIL
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Doug Yanega <dyanega at MONO.ICB.UFMG.BR>
Para: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
Data: Sexta-feira, 20 de Novembro de 1998 11:19
Assunto: Re: quiz (taxonomy)

>Servio wrote:
>
>>The best solution is to regard it as species inquirenda. Doing so, you =
are
>>declaring  that  the name remain valid but it is necessary to clarify t=
he
>>species identity problem. If someone discover a type or any other cue t=
o
the
>>species identity, it will be simple to attribute the name to the specie=
s.
On
>>the other hand, if declare it as a nomen dubium, you are definitively
>>declaring that this name, although available, should not be used for an=
y
>>species, as it is applicable to anything.
>
>This has direct bearing on a situation I have encountered - there is a f=
ly
>species named by Macquart in 1851, for which the unique type is lost and
>the original description problematic (it includes the description of a
>structure which quite definitely does not exist in any fly species).
>However, the remaining features in the description *are* sufficient to
>associate it to one of two extant species, both unnamed (as things stand=
),
>one of which is geographically closer to where Macquart's specimen came
>from.
>        Given that there appear to be two taxa which *could* be Macquart=
's
>species, and that these also fail to match the description (thanks to hi=
s
>inclusion of a non-existent structure), designation of a neotype doesn't
>seem entirely appropriate. Likewise, there is apparently no hope of the
>type being discovered, or anything else to allow an unambiguous choice
>between the two extant taxa (a geographic association is a pretty weak
>basis), so I doubt anything can "clarify the species identity problem", =
and
>species inquirenda is probably out, as well. It would seem to me that
>declaring it a nomen dubium would be the best choice, and that new speci=
es
>names should be given to the two taxa at hand.
>        But now, a twist: Macquart's species is the only described speci=
es
>in its genus (which also happens to be the genus upon which the family n=
ame
>is based). Am I correct in presuming that if I designate Macquart's name=
 to
>be a nomen dubium, that I must designate one of the two newly-named spec=
ies
>to be the type species of the genus? Or *should* I just go ahead and
>designate a neotype, preserving Macquart's name, knowing that there's no
>way anything is going to turn up to clearly contradict such a designatio=
n?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Doug Yanega    Depto. de Biologia Geral, Instituto de Ciencias Biologica=
s,
>Univ. Fed. de Minas Gerais, Cx.P. 486, 30.161-970 Belo Horizonte, MG
BRAZIL
>phone: 31-499-2579, fax: 31-499-2567  (from U.S., prefix 011-55)
>                  http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~dyanega/
>  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
>