[Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name

[Richard Pyle]

Ah!  I should have read further down my inbox before responding.  Francisco provides a much more detailed description of the point I was trying to make.

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
> Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 1:55 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name
> 
> 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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.