[Taxacom] [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an animal

Sun Feb 13 15:48:30 CST 2011

Following on from that, however, there is a point I am not clear on:

For the species Homo erectus, for example, the specific name erectus was originally established in a different genus (Pithecanthropus) and its usage within Homo is purely a taxonomic, not a nomenclatural, assertion, and is nowhere attributed to an authority (as opposed, for example, to the situation in botany). However I presume that someone cannot now legitimately create a new species of of Homo re-using the species epithet "erectus" for a different taxon; however I do not see where in the Code this is prohibited or indeed how it could be (this is similar to the elephant/human example previously mentioned, but the conclusion is different). Or perhaps I am missing something obvious here...

Regards - Tony
________________________________
From: Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 14 February 2011 7:37 AM
To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an animal

yes ... that is why it is better to think in terms of *species-group* names in combination with a genus, not just species names (epithets)

________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 14 February, 2011 9:29:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an animal

Dear Mike,

Paul is correct (and the example amplifies my original point). The relevant Code section covering species-group names is Article 46 and its section 46.1, Principle of Coordination. If a name is published at species level it is deemed to be simultaneously established at subspecies level too, and vice versa. Similarly for genera and subgenera, article 43 and 43.1. So a published subspecies name (epithet) "blocks" any subsequent publication of the same name at species level for a different taxon in the same genus (i.e. based on a different type). Unless of course the name is subsequently suppressed for purpose of homonymy for some special reason (however this will not normally be to allow the use of a of newly published name), or it is published in a work subsequently deemed unavailable.

Regards - Tony

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>] On Behalf Of dipteryx at freeler.nl<mailto:dipteryx at freeler.nl> [dipteryx at freeler.nl<mailto:dipteryx at freeler.nl>]
Sent: Sunday, 13 February 2011 9:10 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an      animal

If I understand you right: among others.
If there is an Alf bob charlie, then it is not allowed
to introduce an Alf charlie (with charlie a new name,
based on a different type; obviously you can raise
the existing taxon to the rank of species).

However, you may have a new Alf charlie, even though
there already is a name Alf charlie as long as that
generic name Alf applies to a different genus
(obviously as a synonym).

Paul

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: sauropoda at gmail.com<mailto:sauropoda at gmail.com> namens Mike Taylor
Verzonden: zo 13-2-2011 10:37
Aan: dipteryx at freeler.nl<mailto:dipteryx at freeler.nl>
CC: iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>
Onderwerp: Re: [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an animal

Ah, so you are alluding to a case that the current version of the Rule
DOESN'T prohibit, right?  We have a genus called Alf which has a
species called bob, which in turn has a subspecies called charlie,
yielding the combination Alf bob (charlie).  You're saying that when
naming a new species of Alf, the specific name charlie may not be used
-- did I get that right?

On 13 February 2011 09:10,  <dipteryx at freeler.nl<mailto:dipteryx at freeler.nl>> wrote:
> Richard Pyle already acknowledged this not to be right, after
> Tony Rees explained this (quite concisely).
>
> My proposed phrasing is less accurate than Tony Rees's
> explanation as I am reluctant to drag in subgenera and subspecies
> in a Checklist that aims to be brief. A more properly accurate
> phrasing would be:
>
>    "5. A new name for a genus must not previously have been used
>      for a different animal (either as a name for a genus or as a
>      name for a subgenus). In a new name for a species, the second
>      part of the name (the specific name) must not previously have
>      been used in that particular genus (either as the second part
>      in a name for a species or as the third part, a subspecific
>      name, in a name for a subspecies)."
>
> But, obviously, readability would suffer accordingly.
>
> Paul
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: sauropoda at gmail.com<mailto:sauropoda at gmail.com> namens Mike Taylor
> Verzonden: zo 13-2-2011 0:08
> Aan: dipteryx at freeler.nl<mailto:dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> Onderwerp: Re: [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an animal
>
> On 12 February 2011 08:29,  <dipteryx at freeler.nl<mailto:dipteryx at freeler.nl>> wrote:
>> Earlier (registered at 11 Feb. 8.48 a.m.), I proposed:
>>    "5. The new name of a genus must not previously have been used
>>    for a different animal. In a new name for a species, the second
>>    part of the name (the specific name) must not previously have
>>    been used in that particular genus."
>>
>> which still looks pretty good to me.
>
> In the current version of the checklist -- which as always is available at
> http://svpow.wordpress.com/checklist-for-new-zoological-genus-and-species-names-draft/
> this point has been substantially rewritten, largely as suggested by
> Richard Pyle, to accomodate names at all ICZN-governed ranks.  As a
> result, it's rather longer (which is a shame), but, I think, clear and
> comprehensive.  It reads:
>
> 5. The complete scientific name (whether uninomial, binomial or
> trinomial) must not previously have been used for a different animal.
> When establishing new species or subspecies names, it is good practice
> to avoid specific names already established within closely related
> genera, to avoid the creation of secondary homonyms if the genera are
> later synonymized. It is also advisable to avoid creating new names
> that have been represented as misspellings of existing names, or names
> established under other Codes of scientific nomenclature (e.g., the
> botanical Code or the bacteriological Code).
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org> namens Richard Pyle
>> Verzonden: za 12-2-2011 3:10
>> Aan: Tony.Rees at csiro.au<mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au>; iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>
>> Onderwerp: Re: [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an animal
>>
>> Right -- agreed.  I wrote that too hastily.  I meant the right thing -- I
>> just didn't articulate it well.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tony.Rees at csiro.au<mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au> [mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au<mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au>]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 2:01 PM
>>> To: Richard Pyle; iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>
>>> Subject: RE: [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an animal
>>>
>>> Dear Rich,
>>>
>>> Just a comment on something you wrote regarding names, I think a couple
>>> of
>>> things are not quite correct here; you wrote:
>>>
>>> -----------------
>>> > 5. The new name must not previously have been used for a different
>>> > animal
>>> Wolfgang responded with:
>>> > The new *genus* name or the new genus+species *combination* might
>>> > be a better wording - after all there are vast numbers of species out
>>> > there with the specific epithets punctatus, vittatus, etc.
>>> ...5. The complete scientific name (e.g., full binomial or trinomial)
>>> must not previously have been used for a different animal. ...
>>>
>>> -----------
>>> I think you are forgetting that subgenera are also automatically valid
>>> for genus level usage, and vice versa, same with subspecies and species
>>> (principle of xxxx, I forget what exactly). In practive this means that
>>> new names proposed as genera must not have been proposed previously at
>>> either genus level or subgenus (for animals at least), likewise new names
>>> for species epithet must not have been proposed at either species or
>>> subspecies level *in the same genus* . (I think I am correct here?). In
>>> view of this there is probably some re-wording to be done, but I will
>>> leave you or others to suggest the exact form which is required.
>>>
>>> Best regards - Tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org<mailto:iczn-list at afriherp.org>
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list
>
>

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>

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