What's in a Name?

[Richard Pyle]

Greetings:

Some months ago I solicited feedback from this group about issues related to
Basionyms and Protologues, and the feedback I received was generally
excellent and extremely helpful.  I would now like to pose another related
question to both the zoology and botany community, having to do with the
development of my taxonomic names database system.

I know the subject line is somewhat of a cliché within the field of
taxonomy, but I use it here in a literal way. There is some ambiguity in
what, exactly, is actually meant when a taxonomist thinks of a taxonomic
"Name".  Monomials are straightforward, but when it comes to polynomials,
some think of the "name" as really being only the terminal epithet (with
non-terminal epithets having more to do with the hierarchical context in
which the "name" is placed), and others (especially in botanical circles)
tend to think of the "name" as the complete polynomial.  For instance,
consider:

Anthias ventralis hawaiiensis Randall 1979
Pseudanthias ventralis hawaiiensis (Randall 1979)
Pseudanthias hawaiiensis (Randall 1979)

Some might regard these as all being the same "name" ("hawaiiensis"),
because they all have the same original description, primary type, etc.; and
that the generic placement and rank treatment are simply modifications to
the hierarchical context of the name. Others would see three distinct
"names", because the name is thought of as the entire polynomial.

The purpose of this message is NOT to solicit feedback on which approach is
"better", or more consistent with the respective IC_N Code, or the like.  (I
know better than to stir that pot).  Rather, I am seeking a word that
unambiguously refers to the first instance where a "New Combination" of a
previously-described terminal epithet is used.  I can use the word "Epithet"
to represent a monomial component of a polynomial, and I suppose I could
simply use the term "New Combination" to refer to what I am after here --
but I wanted to run it past this group (especially botanists) to see if
there exists another term that would better describe what it is that I am
looking for.

The reason I target botanists on this issue is because they are more
explicit about documenting various authorities on names.  Taking the above
example (a fish), based on my understanding, botanists would probably cite
them as follows:

Anthias ventralis Randall hawaiiensis Randall
Pseudanthias ventralis (Randall) Smith hawaiiensis (Randall) Hoover
Pseudanthias hawaiiensis (Randall) Randall

The extra "Randall" in the first one represents the fact that Randall also
originally described Anthias ventralis. The "Smith" in the second one is
fictitious in this case, but represents whoever it was that first placed
"ventralis" in the genus Pseudanthias. "Hoover" in the second one represents
the first person to publish the subspecies epithet "hawaiiensis" in the
context of the genus Pseudanthias. The second Randall in the third one
represents the fact that Randall (in a later publication) was the first to
treat hawaiiensis as a full species.  Note that my use of "Smith", "Hoover",
and the latter-published "Randall" may not actually be correct in this
example ("Smith" is definitely not correct), because we in the Zoo world
tend not to keep track of who first established new combinations. Hoover and
the latter Randall are my best guess, but I would need to research the
literature more carefully to see if there are earlier authors who
established these alternate combinations.  But for the purposes of
discussion, the above will suffice.

Now....we already have the term "Basionym" in botany to represent the first
of the above three name combinations. (I've tentatively been using the term
"Protonym" in my database, for several reasons, but I don't want to get
side-tracked on that here).  The main purpose of this email is to solicit
feedback from this group as to whether there is another, perhaps better term
besides "New Combination" to represent the latter two in the example above?
I'm OK with using "New Combination", but I wanted to check with this group
to see if there is another term that I am unaware of (my previous query
about "Basionym" revealed to me the word "Protologue", which I had not
previously been familiar with).

Any suggestions?

I also have some additional questions about recognizing authorships of new
combinations:

1) Is my above interpretation correct?  For example, does Hoover get cited
as being the first person who placed the subspecies hawaiiensis with the
genus Pseudanthias?  Or does that credit somehow go to the fictitious
"Smith" for being the first to put ventralis in Pseudanthias (and, by
implication, all valid subspecies thereof)?

2) Does the latter-published "Randall" get credit for the combination
"Pseudanthias hawaiiensis" by being the first to treat it as a full species?
Or should the credit really go to Hoover, for being the first to place it in
the Genus "Pseudanthias"?

3) Suppose Jones treated "hawaiiensis" as a full species within the original
genus "Anthias".  Would the proper citation then be:
"Anthias hawaiiensis (Randall) Jones"? In other words, does a rank shift
alone warrant credit for a "New Combination"?

4) The real situation with this species is actually slightly more
complicated, because the complete basionym is:
"Anthias (Pseudanthias) ventralis Randall hawaiiensis Randall".  That is, in
the original description, Randall treated Pseudanthias as a subgenus of
Anthias.  Does this affect any of the subsequent "New Combination"
authorships?

5) Related to the previous question, suppose Jones in Question 3 had instead
published the name as:
"Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) ventralis hawaiiensis"  Would Jones get credit
for using a different subgenus?  E.g.:
"Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) ventralis (Randall) Jones hawaiiensis (Randall)
Jones"?

6) Finally, what constitutes a "legitimate" publication for establishing a
new combination?  Does the botanical Code deal with this? (I don't believe
that the Zoological Code does, 'though I haven't checked.)  Are the
requirements similar to those which designate original descriptions, or
first revisers (do Botanists even deal with first revisers?).  Or, will any
old publication do? (e.g., the "Hoover" above is actually a popular field
guide, not a taxonomic work).

I apologize for the length of this post, but would greatly appreciate any
feedback on my various questions.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle
Natural Sciences Database Coordinator, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://www.bishopmuseum.org/bishop/HBS/pylerichard.html