any official terminology?

[Ron at]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vazrick Nazari" <nvazrick at YAHOO.COM>
To: <TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: any official terminology?


> I believe the appropriate terminology to be used is "stat. rev." after
the newly proposed combination, no matter if it is a return-to-original, or
else.
> Here is an example:
> www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ bsc/aen/2005/00000044/00000001/art00003
>
> Hope that helps.

************

There can be no "newly" proposed combination where nothing is new to
science or nomenclature.   Any species can be combined with one to several
generic combinations and held as correct simultaneously depending upon the
subjective taxonomic opinions of workers.  To a person who has always
considered the "original" combination correct, upon seeing someone's paper
where they have shifted _their_ taxonomic view to accepting the original,
the person will be thinking ---- "It's about time they got it right".
Revised status to who?   New to who?  The term revised status can be
applied to shifting binomials and trinomials between genera and species
_other than_ the original combination.   A shift from Xus bus (Smith), 1888
to Gus bus (Smith), 1888 is a stat. rev.  But not from Gus or Xus to Aus
bus Smith, 1888.  Aus (Gus) bus Smith, 1888 can be considered a stat. rev.
It is impossible for an original epithet to be a revision except in the
minds of some who previously rejected _that_ genus as the correct
placement.  Same for subspecies.

Here is a example:  "The taxon Aus bus Smith, 1888 has been considered by
most specialists over the last 75 years to belong in the genus Xus.
However, our recent studies of its genitalia (or and mtDNA, etc.) as
presented herein, stongly evidence that the original placement by Smith
into Aus was correct.  The present authors thus retain Aus bus as the
correct combination. It should be noted however that Vogle and Bates (2003)
placed species bus in the genus Gus based on two minor morphological tarsal
 characters.  We consider that stat. rev. as unwarrented........."    Note
I said "retain" not "return to".

I couldn't get the link to work.

Ron Gatrelle