any official terminology?

[Martin Spies]

G.B. Edwards' question was:
"... is there any official terminology to restore a species to its
original combination?"

Since Dr. Edwards' address shows that he works on arachnids, the
"official terminology" he refers to can be that of the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature only. The currently effective fourth
edition of the Code (ICZN 1999), to my knowledge, does not provide a
term such as Dr. Edwards is seeking. Therefore, the answer to Dr.
Edwards' question - as stated by Dr. Lammers - simply is: no.


Regarding the ramifications introduced by other messages in this thread:

Ron Gatrelle wrote: "The purpose of parenthesis in *Xus
bus (Smith), 1888 ...".
The second bracket is misplaced here, the form of citation recommended
by the Code would be "Xus bus (Smith, 1888)".

Ron Gatrelle also wrote: "Thus, the solution is the proper formal
citation of taxa ... rather than the short hand ... where author
and/or date is not included."
According to the Code, citing a species name as Xus bus only, without
authorship and date, is NOT a "short hand" or even improper way of
citation, as Dr. Gatrelle's statement says and implies, respectively.
Instead, the scientific name of a species consists of nothing more
than the genus name and the species epithet. Authorship and date are
important add-ons, where applicable, but they are NOT integral parts
of the scientific name (see, e.g., Code Articles 4 and 5). Otherwise,
we would have to cite authorship and date every time a scientific name
is mentioned, not just once or a few times in each paper, as is the
widely accepted standard.

Vazrick Nazari wrote: "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."
The term "stat. rev." is not sanctioned or defined by, nor even
mentioned in, the ICZN Code, therefore cannot be taken as "official",
nor be used unambiguously. The Code discusses the term "stat. nov.",
but specifically advises that it "should not be used" (Recommendation
16A) any longer, not even in the highly specific context it was used
in before (that is entirely different from the one raised by Dr. Edwards).


Lastly: Dr. Edwards' question concerned a return to the original
combination. However, there also are numerous cases in which the
species epithet has been combined with more than two genus names in
the course of taxonomic history; thus, returns to any number of
previously used combinations can be possible and in accordance with
Code rules. To define official terms for each and every conceivable
type of such circumstances is unnecessary and would do more harm than
good, due to the confusion it would inevitably entail.
Instead, in my view, the term "comb. nov." is not intended to signal
the CHANGE in combination - if that were the case, other changes would
have to be signalled as well - but rather the fact that a new and
Code-legal combination is being used FOR THE FIRST TIME.


Regards,

--
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany