[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 170, Issue 10

[Dyoke van Assum]

Begrijp ik goed dat je het artikel al had? Ik dacht als ik het Joost stuur
dan ook een kopie naar jou.
Ik zie er in ieder geval interessante nieuwe soorten (van die tijd
natuurlijk) tussen staan. Ga straks rustig naar afbeeldingen van deze
soorten zoeken.

Groetjes en misschien zien we elkaar morgen. Ik rijd om ca. 15:30 uit
amsterdam weg. Dan kan ik tegen 5 uur jullie straat inrijden. Het is
tegenwoordig weer aardig druk op de weg. Waar ik natuurlijk even hard aan
meedoe. Maar ik ga geen 2 uur in openbaar vervoer doorbrengen.

Dyoke


Op ma 15 jun. 2020 om 19:00 schreef <taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>:

> Daily News from the Taxacom Mailing List
>
> When responding to a message, please do not copy the entire digest into
> your reply.
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Unnecessary new replacement name (Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz)
>    2. Re: Unnecessary new replacement name (Francisco Welter-Schultes)
>    3. Re: Unnecessary new replacement name (Adam Cotton)
>    4. Re: Unnecessary new replacement name (Francisco Welter-Schultes)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:31:45 +0300
> From: Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz <biotemail at gmail.com>
> To: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CACA4WzCwYFtFW5Q-_fsuKFqD062dXz6EZ3cE-4VGUWYddvq3VQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> 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/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:55:25 +0200
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name
> Message-ID: <8fc1c748-59d6-457d-cb0f-93072949e144 at gwdg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 19:03:06 +0700
> From: Adam Cotton <adamcot at cscoms.com>
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name
> Message-ID: <25329eb6-b3a1-59d3-7285-859330beebed at cscoms.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 15-06-2020 18:55, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
> >> 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.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
> If I understand the situation correctly the best term for the genus name
> 'Cus Author, year' is 'nomen nudum', since it was not introduced in a
> Code compliant manner.
>
> Adam.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:12:40 +0200
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name
> Message-ID: <659dec91-fe6d-33d2-af15-e26aa889d86a at gwdg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>
> Carlos did not talk about the date at which Cus was proposed.
>
> -----
> Francisco
>
> Am 15.06.2020 um 14:03 schrieb Adam Cotton via Taxacom:
> > On 15-06-2020 18:55, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> > If I understand the situation correctly the best term for the genus name
> > 'Cus Author, year' is 'nomen nudum', since it was not introduced in a
> > Code compliant manner.
> >
> > Adam.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 170, Issue 10
> ****************************************
>