[Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name

Mon Dec 20 19:18:27 CST 2010

so, for your cephalopods, Art. 29.5 means that the original descriptions are 
irrelevant if there is a "prevailing usage" (though this might have to only 
include primary taxonomic sources) ... though if there is no "prevailing usage", 
my interpretation of the Code (Article 29.3) is that the original 
description/spelling is still irrelevant, and the correct spelling is the 
grammatically correct spelling. Note that Art. 29.4. 'Acceptance of originally 
formed stem. If after 1999 a new family-group name ...' only applies to new 
names after 1999 ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au; dyanega at ucr.edu; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 1:38:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group name

Dear all,

Completely by chance, I now have an equivalent problem in squids and cirrate 
octopods to chase, many of which genera end in -teuthis, for example 
Trachyteuthidae/Trachyteuthididae, Grimpoteuthidae/Grimpoteuthididae, 
Luteuthidae/Luteuthididae and so on... is there any consensus on "prevailing 
usage" for these, or is it going to be a case by case basis going back to the 
original descriptions? (I feel a trawl through BHL and Zoological Record coming 
up...)

Regards - Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 December 2010 11:04 AM
> To: dyanega at ucr.edu; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a
> family-group name
> 
> Hi Doug, thanks for the input.
> 
> I've located the original work i.e. Laidlaw, 1902, in Gardiner, Fauna
> Maldive Laccad., 1 (3), 291, in which the family is erected and therein
> spelled Pericelidae, here:
> 
> http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11179819
> 
> So I am presuming that settles it?
> 
> Cheers - Tony
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Yanega
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 December 2010 10:49 AM
> > To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Quick question re formation of a family-group
> name
> >
> > Tony Rees wrote:
> >
> > >For a genus of flatworms (Pericelis Laidlaw, 1902) which is the type
> > >genus of a family, the family name is given variously as Pericelidae
> > >(e.g. in Parker, 1982 and in the World Register of Marine Species
> > >and ITIS) or Pericelididae (as given in other sources e.g. the
> > >Turbellarian taxonomic database at this time).
> > >
> > >The Zoological Code allows either construction so far as I can tell,
> > >and ultimately goes to "prevailing usage":
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >29.3.1.1. If the stem so formed ends in -id, those letters may be
> > >elided before adding the family-group suffixes. If, however, the
> > >unelided form is in prevailing usage, that spelling is to be
> > >maintained, whether or not it is the original spelling.
> > >
> > >Example. The family-group names HALIOTIDAE and HALIOTOIDEA are not
> > >changed to HALIOTIDIDAE and HALIOTIDOIDEA, even though the stem of
> > >Haliotis is Haliotid-, as the latter spellings are not in prevailing
> > >usage.
> > >
> > ></snip>
> > >
> > >"elided" was not a term I was previously familiar with, but means
> > >omitted or eliminated for present purposes.
> > >
> > >If that well known authority Google is anything to go by,
> > >Pericelidae wins over its longer rival (11,700 vs. 143) but I have a
> > >feeling that this may conceivably be skewed by propagation and
> > >re-propagation of some high profile listing, e.g. Catalogue of Life
> > >- for example unreviewed names from the original NODC taxonomic code
> > >are still present in ITIS and in some cases passed up to CoL without
> > >further comment or scrutiny, and this appears to be one such name.
> > >(This is not intended to be a springboard for criticism of that
> > >system, just a possible indication of how and why such things may
> > >happen).
> > >
> > >Suggestions, authoritative or not would be welcome as to which name
> > >would be more appropriate to follow at this time - at present my
> > >preference would be for the longer form since that appears to be
> > >used in arguably more authoritative sources, but I am open to other
> > >evidence. For example in Zoological Record, a search on
> > >"Pericelidae" yields one hit only, but Pericelididae yields none...
> > >Pericelidae has 13 hits on Google scholar, Pericelididae has 3.
> > >
> > >Does anyone have a magic bullet here, maybe?
> >
> > If there are two spellings in use, then one has to appear at an
> > earlier date in the literature. The *default* option under the Code
> > is to use the oldest name, but there are conditions - such as
> > prevailing usage - where the default does not apply. The Code is
> > reasonably clear on what sorts of sources qualify for determining
> > "prevailing usage", so - in principle - a thorough look at the
> > primary literature dating back 50 years (e.g., see Art. 23.9.1)
> > *should* be sufficient. It is always possible in a very small group
> > with few publishing authors, that these minimum requirements are not
> > met, and various situations and approaches are outlined in other
> > parts of Article 23.9, some of which may require petitioning the ICZN
> > for a ruling.
> >
> > In the present case, the names are rather close to the insect family
> > Periscelididae, and the shorter spelling is less likely to be
> > confused, but that's not *technically* a homonym, so it doesn't
> > really come into play.
> >
> > It seems possible that someone not conversant with the Code but
> > conversant in Latin is responsible for the change from Pericelidae to
> > Pericelididae, but the citation you give - 23.9.1.1 - is quite
> > explicit that the name should NOT be changed, even if it's bad Latin.
> > Bad Latin is not a Code violation, though many people seem to act as
> > if it is.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > --
> >
> > Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology        Entomology Research
> Museum
> > Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314        skype: dyanega
> > phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
> UCR's)
> >              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
> >    "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
> >          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> > these methods:
> >
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here