[Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name

[Richard Pyle]

Hmmm... At first glance I agree with you.  However, could this simply be a case of establishing a new genus name and designating Bus cus as the type species? For example, is it possible to interpret the word "replacement" in the text not so much as an explicit reference to Art. 60, but rather as a term meaning "we had been referring to this species within the genus "Bus", but now we're establishing a new genus to replace that traditional genus placement"?

I guess the question is:  If all criteria are provided for establishing a new genus-group name (designation of type species, etc.), then does framing it as a "replacement" name somehow negate its availability (assuming it would otherwise be available)?

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Database Coordinator
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
BishopMuseum.org
Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 12:32 AM
> To: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name
> 
> 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*."
> 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*.
> 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.
> My question is: Would you agree with calling *Cus* "unnecessary new
> replacement name" for precision?
> 
> 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.