any official terminology?

[Ron at]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas G. Lammers" <lammers at UWOSH.EDU>
To: <TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: any official terminology?


> At 03:28 PM 5/2/2005, Edwards, G.B. wrote:
> >As a point of curiosity, is there any official terminology to restore a
> >species to its original combination?  I don't recall ever encountering
> >such, not that it's really needed.  A New Combination or New Status
> >designation doesn't seem appropriate (actually, it's an Old Combination/
> >Old Status), although I suppose you could argue for the latter.  It's
> >just not a very good alternative.
>
> No, you just USE it.  The name already exists and is available, so no
> nomenclatural action is required.
>
>
> Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.
****************

As Thomas said, no special notation is called for, nor appropriate, for a
_species_.   Your question indicates you are referring to the original
genus / species combination.   When cited as *Aus bus*  Smith, 1888  the
name / author / date structure tells us this is the origninal genus /
species combination.   It's a given.   The purpose of parenthesis in *Xus
bus (Smith), 1888 is to let us know that species *bus* was not originally
described in geuns *Xus*.   Thus, the solution is the proper formal
citation of taxa the first time they are referred to in the text - rather
than the short hand some like where author and/or date is not included.

Ron Gatrelle