[Taxacom] [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an animal
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Feb 13 15:56:23 CST 2011
you are talking about secondary homonymy, for which the ICZN rules are more
complex, see article 57.3
but, it is clear that a new species of Homo named erectus would be an invalid
junior secondary homonym in Homo of Pithecanthropus erectus
because of the "taxonomic" nature of secondary homonymy, it is somewhat
"subjective" in that a newly named Homo erectus would only be an invalid junior
secondary homonym *if* you accept the taxonomic judgement that Pithecanthropus
erectus rightly belongs in Homo ...
Stephen
________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 14 February, 2011 10:48:30 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] Bullet-point summary on how to name an animal
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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list