[Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name

[Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz]

Dear Taxacomers,
Many thanks to Francisco and to Adam for their public replies. Additional
thanks to Francisco for his private emails and his feedback on the specific
example from which I made the generalization I exposed in my former email.
I will proceed here with the issues related to the general example.

My example was lacking dates. *Aus* and *Bus* are pre-1931 and *Cus* is
post-1999.
I agree with the point made here of the authors of *Cus* not being aware of
what a new replacement name was (as defined in ZooCode 4). However, I would
advocate for caution on considering *Cus* as a nomen nudum instead of an
unnecessary replacement name. My reasoning for not proposing this in my
first email:

1) The format in which *Cus* was established is:

Genus *Cus* Author & Author,* nomen novum*
pro *Bus* Author.
Type: *Bus cus* Author, year

As you can see, there is an explicit, even if incorrect (refer to my first
email), "nomen novum" label which conforms to Art. 16.1 and Recommendation
16A. Opening a standardized label to subjective interpretation may have
undesired consequences. Also, there is no diagnosis or description given in
this example, which further supports the idea that at least the authors
knew that replacement names did not need one.

2) Important conditions to be met for availability, avoiding nomina nuda on
one hand and defining replacement names on the other hand, are both defined
in Art. 13.1. I will omit 13.1.2 below and refer only to 13.1.1 and 13.1.3.
13.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published after 1930
must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must
13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words
characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or
13.1.3. be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for
an available name, whether required by any provision of the Code or not.

I would argue that authors using the label "nomen novum" should have their
intention explicitly read and related to 13.1.3 rather than 13.1.1.
Describing new taxa and naming them is one of the frequent tasks of
taxonomists, and hardly giving a diagnosis and a description will be
missed. In contrast, proposing replacement names is rather rare. In this
context, misinterpreting 13.1.3. is easier than misinterpreting 13.1.1.

3) I chose Art. 13.1.3. in point 2 also because it has a direct impact on
whether the name is available or unavailable. Art. 13.1.1. is
straightforward and if violated would render a name as unavailable.
Meanwhile, Art. 13.1.3. gives room to mistakes: "whether required by any
provision of the Code or not", effectively avoiding inflation of
unavailable names from unnecessary replacement names.

4) The incorrect designation of *Bus cus* instead of *Aus aus* as the type
species of the genus-rank replacement name *Cus* does not affect
Code-compliance of *Cus*. That is explicitly prevented by:
Art. 67.8. Type species of nominal genus-group taxa denoted by new
replacement names (nomina nova). If an author publishes a new genus-group
name expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for a previously
established name, or replaces a previously established genus-group name by
an unjustified emendation [Art. 33.2.3], both the prior nominal taxon and
its replacement have the same type species, and type fixation for either
applies also to the other, despite any statement to the contrary (see also
Article 13.3).

Note the final part: "type fixation for either applies also to the
other, *despite
any statement to the contrary*". Art. 67.8 automatically fixes *Aus aus*
(type species of *Bus*) as the type species of *Cus*, replacement name pro
*Bus*, despite any statement to the contrary.

My reasoning summarized:
1) *Cus* is an available name under Art. 13.1.3.
2) *Cus* is an objective synonym of *Bus*, as it was published as a
replacement name of the latter, and also an objective synonym of *Aus*
because they have the same type species, *Aus aus*.
3) * Cus* is an unnecessary substitute name for *Bus. *
4) Being unnecessary, *Cus* is to be treated as invalid because of being an
objective junior synonym of *Bus*.

After all those considerations, I wrote my first email and asked: Would you
agree with calling *Cus* "unnecessary new replacement name" for precision?
I think that concerns on *Cus* being a nomen nudum have now been addressed
and that my question still stands.

Kind regards,
Carlos

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/>