[Taxacom] Canis [familiaris] dingo Blumenbach - a non-existentname?

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 12:15 AM

> Maybe to some this will seem a lot of effort to clean up one name but in
> this case the error was propagated widely and picked up in other sources
> including several Wikipedia articles and Wikispecies, whom I will contact,
> as well as elsewhere no doubt.

***
Yes, it is nice to be able to eliminate errors.

This brings to mind that ITIS still uses several names that
have been 'outlawed' by Opinion 2027 (2003). This is
based on an error in Mammal Species of the World (2005),
an error for which the surviving author has since apologized.
It concerns names for very well-known animals:
    Bos primigenius (not 'Bos taurus primigenius')
    Bos gaurus (not 'Bos frontalis gaurus')
    Bos mutus (not 'Bos grunniens mutus')
    Bubalus arnee (not 'Bubalus bubalus arnee')
    Camelus ferus (not 'Camelus bactrianus ferus')
    Capra aegagrus (not 'Capra hircus aegagrus')
    Lama guanicoe (not 'Lama glama guanicoe')
    Ovis orientalis (not 'Ovis aries orientalis')

[The first name as allowed / protected by Opinion 2027.
The names in parentheses as used by ITIS and disallowed
by Opinion 2027, with the other subspecies also named
wrong.

Treating taxa at the level of subspecies, Bos primigenius
primigenius, Bos primigenius taurus, Bos primigenius indicus
are nomenclaturally correct options for three related taxa.]

Something wrong with the silkworm, as well.

It has now been fifteen years since Opinion 2027 was published
    https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34357823
so cleaning up these names in ITIS is well overdue.

Can somebody please help?

Paul

[There have been earlier efforts]