[Taxacom] Drosophila melanogaster name change?

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Paul Kirk
Verzonden: di 13-4-2010 16:20

> Thanks for your input David ... by a strange quirk in the Code only
> typified names which have been used in a sense excluding the type 
> are subject to mandatory conservation proposals - e.g. by changing 
> the type to protect current usage - 

***
This refers to Art 57.1
"57.1.  A name that has been widely and persistently used for 
a taxon or taxa not including its type is not to be used 
in a sense that conflicts with current usage unless and 
until a proposal to deal with it under Art. 14.1 or 56.1
has been submitted and rejected."

In this regard, the question is not so much whether a taxon is 
typified or untypified, but whether the matter can be set right 
by no more trouble than a retypification. In that case it makes
sense to require a formal examination of such a retypification. 
This is not quirky.

For other cases it surely is desirable to be careful to preserve
current usage as much as possible, but there is a wide range of
potential problems, so I guess it is understandable that there 
are no detailed provisions to cover them. Personally I think it
would have been nice if there would have been at least a general
recommendation to actively consider submitting a proposal 
to conserve or reject.

Paul van Rijckevorsel
* * *

> before a change in name, such proposals to be
> either accepted or rejected after debate, whereas untypified names,
> even with a clear 'circumscription', can be summarily 'replaced' 
> without regard to '... the provision of a stable method of naming 
> taxa ...'. With actions like this who can defend taxonomy as serving
> it's customers. As I remarked at the time - what does the rat 
> (or other mammal) care if the name of the organism infecting 
> it has to change? I intentionally avoid the use of the word species 
> in this instance.

> Paul 

_____