[Taxacom] Opinion 2027 [ was Canis [familiaris] dingo Blumenbach ]
Francisco Welter-Schultes
fwelter at gwdg.de
Wed May 9 05:50:42 CDT 2018
The explanation of that ruling in Opinion 2027 is slightly
sophisticated, and the Commission is aware of that, but in this case it
is not problematic to select the correct names, depending on the
individual situation.
Canis lupus L 1758 is the name of the wild form of the species. Opinion
2027 makes sure that the wild form shall carry the name of the wild
species, not of an eventually earlier established name for a
domesticated form. So the wolf's name shall in any case be Canis lupus.
It is not admissible to use Canis familiaris L 1758 for the wolf, even
if the First Reviser gave precedence to C. familiaris over C. lupus
(which I do not kow off hand).
The dingo is considered a domesticated form of Canis lupus, many years
ago released or escaped to the wild again.
I am not exactly up to date on the taxonomic issues. Those authors who
consider the dingo a wild species, not conspecific with the wolf, would
call that species Canis dingo. I do not know if there are such authors.
Those authors who consider the dingo a special race of the dog and would
like to use the name for the dog Canis familiaris L 1758, can call this
form Canis familiaris, or Canis familiaris dingo. Those who consider the
dingo being a dog but so much different that it would be some kind of an
independently evolved dog for which an independent name would be
justified or needed, would call this independently domesticated form
Canis dingo, as opposed to the other dogs Canis familiaris.
Those who like to talk in a scientific environment about dogs and dingos
and wolves as one species, will have to use the specific name Canis
lupus for the species (following Op. 2027), and if they consider the dog
and the dingo as subspecies, call those subspecies Canis lupus
familiaris and, if they consider the dingo an independent subspecies not
consubspecific with the dog, Canis lupus dingo. For the latter authors
or users Op. 2027 does not come into play, because Canis lupus is the
senior name anyway and does not compete with Canis dingo.
Horses or dogs that escaped and live in the wild are usually called
feral domesticated species, not wild species in the sense of Op. 2027.
The dingo would not be called a wild species in this sense.
If this helps.
Cheers
Francisco
-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes
Am 09.05.2018 um 10:20 schrieb Paul van Rijckevorsel:
> OK, in the absense of anybody supporting
> my interpretation of Opinion 2027, is there
> anybody who would like to share his (other)
> interpretation of this ruling?
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul van Rijckevorsel"
> <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 12:46 PM
>
>> 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]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list