What's in a Name?

[Dipteryx]

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 7:03 PM
Subject: What's in a Name?

> 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.

+ + +
For botanical names the words "new combination" are used only in the
relevant publication (as "comb.nov.") to mark the event. After that it is
just a combination, no longer being new.
+ + +

> [1] Anthias ventralis Randall hawaiiensis Randall
> [2] Pseudanthias ventralis (Randall) Smith subspecies hawaiiensis
(Randall) Hoover
> [3] Pseudanthias hawaiiensis (Randall) Randall

> The "Smith" in the second one is
fictitious in this case, but represents whoever it was that first placed
"ventralis" in the genus Pseudanthias.
+ + + published the epithet "ventralis" at the rank of species 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.
+ + +  Hoover was the one to publish hawaiiensis at the rank of
subspecies within the species P.ventralis. If somebody else moved it to the
rank of variety it would get a new authority. Also for forma. + + +

> 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

+ + + Randall was the one to publish this epithet at the rank of species in
Pseudanthias. It might have been a species in another genus before. + + +

> 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"?
+ + + yes, see above + + +

> 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?
+ + + No, although citing a subgeneric unit in this way is allowed (Rec
21A), almost(?) nobody actually does this. Anyway the subgeneric name is not
part of the name of a species or subspecies proper and it does not affect
authorship (Art 23.1 and 24.1) + + +

> 5) Related to the previous question, suppose Jones in Question 3 had
instead published the name as:
"Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) ventralis ssp hawaiiensis"  Would Jones get
credit for using a different subgenus?  E.g.:
"Anthias (Mirolabrichthys) ventralis (Randall) Jones ssp hawaiiensis
(Randall) Jones"?
+ + + no, see above + + +

> 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).

+ + +
The operative words are "effective publication" ie the physical thing (book,
magazine, but not CD) in Art 29 (30, 31) and "valid publication" which is
the information, covered in Art 32-45

Hoping to have covered the main points
Paul van Rijckevorsel
Utrecht, NL