[Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Csrlos,
my comments in between the lines. I assume this question is about animal 
names.

-----
Francisco

Am 15.06.2020 um 12:31 schrieb Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom:
> Dear (Zoo) Taxacomers,
> 
> I came across a case which could be summarized as:
> "Genera *Aus* and *Bus* have the same type species *Aus aus* and are
> objective synonyms. However, species *Bus cus* is not congeneric with *Aus
> aus*. There is no available junior synonym of *Bus* to accommodate *Bus cus*.
> Therefore, we rename *Bus* with the new replacement name *Cus*, with type
> species *Bus cus*."

Not nonsense, but clearly the authors did not understand what a new 
replacement name is.

> The situation above is clearly a misuse of new replacement names, as no
> homonymy was implied and what should have been proposed and diagnosed is a
> completely new generic name. The attempt of fixing *Bus cus* as type
> species of *Cus* would also be incorrect, as generic replacement names
> inherit the type species of the generic names which they replace. In this
> case, *Cus* will have also *Aus aus* as type species and be an objective
> synonym of both *Bus* and *Aus*.

There is a conflict between the intention to establish a new name with 
type species Bus cus, and the intention to establish a new replacemrnt 
name for Bus. Actually the second intention was not there, this was just 
because the authors did not understand the Code.

> The term "unnecessary substitute name" is mentioned in the ZooCode 4. The
> related term "unnecessary replacement name" was used several times by
> Bousquet (2012) (https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.245.3416). You could check
> more genus rank examples in that work.

Unnecessaryy replacement names are names that were expressly (and 
successfully) proposed as new replacement names, they are available 
names with the same type as their replaced names. They were intended as 
replacement for nomenclatural reasons, but without need because either 
the original name can be used, or because another previously established 
name can be used instead.
Such things can happen if an older name was overlooked, or if authors 
assumed homonymy but looking closely there was no homonymy, or because 
the name to be replaced was regarded as inappropriate (disregarding Art. 
18, particularly if proposed in an epoch when this Article was not in 
force). In those cases the authors did intend to replace the name, they 
were aware of what they were doing.

> My question is: Would you agree with calling *Cus* "unnecessary new
> replacement name" for precision?

This is a special situation because the authors were not aware of what 
they were doing when they were expressly proposing a new replacement 
name. They simply did not understand what a new replacment name was in 
zoological nomenclature. The intention of the authors was to propose Cus 
to be used as the generic name for Bus cus which was not congeneric with 
Aus aus. So the expressed and very well visible intention was to 
establish a regular new name with its own type. The term "new 
replacement name" was employed in error.
So I would not agree it was an "unnecessary new replacment name", 
because it was not a new replacement name at all.

If you can give me the example then we can eventually incorporate this 
in the 5th edition of the Code,, to illustrate the limit between a 
regular new name and a new replacement name.

> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
> FI-20014 University of Turku
> Finland
> Myriatrix <http://myriatrix.myspecies.info/>
> ResearchGate profile
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Martinez-Munoz>
> Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/205802113162102/>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>