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

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

Thanks Tony, but they already know.

Their problem is that they allow themselves to be 
confused by the "ruled under the plenary power
to be not invalid by reason of being pre-dated by
a name based on a domestic form" which is indeed
a double negative that is awkward to read, rather 
than going by the more readable:
"The names listed in the ruling above, which are 
the first available names in use based on wild 
populations, apply to wild species and include
those for their domestic derivatives if these are
not distinguishable." (p83)

So what is immediately needed is a nomenclaturalist, 
or two, or three, who state support for the obvious 
explanation of the ruling.

Paul

 ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tony Rees 
  To: Paul van Rijckevorsel 
  Cc: taxacom 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:15 AM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Canis [familiaris] dingo Blumenbach - a non-existentname?


  Hello Paul, I have alerted ITIS to your message as below and hopefully you or I will get an appropriate response from them shortly. 


  Best regards - Tony


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



  On 8 May 2018 at 15:44, Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:

    ----- 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]