[Taxacom] unflagged classification change question

[Tony Rees]

Dear all,

it seems to me that none of the options (A), (B) or (C) in the original
post quite cover the optimal response. Basically the "new" worker needs to
review the evidence on which the proposed synonymy was based, together with
anything that has come to light more recently, and come to a decision as to
whether s/he currently accepts the synonymy treatment (lumping if you will,
let us say as most recently argued, or accepted by "Federer") or the "2
distinct species" treatment (the splitting option, let us say as most
recently argued, or accepted by "Nadal"). The choice of wording then
becomes more simple, along the lines of:

"Taxonomic treatment follows [Federer | Nadal] (delete as appropriate),
although  [Nadal | Federer] treats "species B" as [an accepted species | a
junior synomym of "species A"].

Of course if there is no recent work that seriously argues splitting, then
saying "Taxonomic treatment follows Federer" would be quite sufficient.

Whether or not "Smith" is mentioned as well, or in place of "Nadal", would
depend on the notability (perceived authoritativeness, or wide
distribution), of the "Smith" treatment". If the "Smith" work is notable
(for example, a widely distributed checklist of the group), I would suggest
"Smith" replace "Nadal" in the sample wording above. If "Smith" is a minor
work, then it may merit mention in an additional remark, or not, according
to the author's discretion. Basically here we are talking usages, not
nomenclatural or new taxonomic acts, which as such would not normally
appear in a synonymy list, but may on occasion still be of value to be
notified to a reader.

That is my take, and I encounter such situations on a semi-regular basis.

Regards to all - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Derek Sikes <dssikes at alaska.edu
<http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>> wrote:
>
> >* All,
> *>>* For those of you who keep track of one or more taxonomic classifications on
> *>* which you are an authority...
> *>>* I'd like to know how you'd react to the following (all too-realistic)
> *>* hypothetical scenario:
> *>>* *You find a publication by Smith in which a species name that you feel had
> *>* been justifiably made a junior synonym some years earlier, was treated as a
> *>* valid species with no explanation for the change. *
> *>>* In the next publication you produce on the group do you:
> *>>* A) list it as a valid species citing Smith's publication
> *>>* B) re-synonymize it, cite Smith, and explain that there was no evidence
> *>* offered by Smith for the change
> *>>* C) ignore (don't cite) Smith and list it as a junior synonym
> *>>* D) something else? (& for this hypothetical, imagine Smith recently died)
> *>>* Thanks,
> *>* Derek
> *>>* --
> *>>* +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> *>* Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects
> *>* Associate Professor of Entomology
> *>* University of Alaska Museum
> *>* 1962 Yukon Drive
> *>* Fairbanks, AK   99775-6960
> *>>* dssikes at alaska.edu <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>*
>
>
>