[Taxacom] Unnecessary new replacement name

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Carlos,

In the initial introduction of the case an important detail in the 
post-1999 publication was not mentioned, this can lead to inappropriate 
conclusions.

"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*."

Both original authors of Aus and Bus were not aware that they misapplied 
the name Aus aus, and that both had only seen a species later described 
as Bus cus.
This falls under Art. 70.3. The post-1999 authors could have invoked 
this Article.

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

I would cite this in this form:

Genus Cus Author1, nomen novum
pro "Bus Author2" auctorum
Type: Bus cus Author3, year

Author1 is the present author of the post-1999 work (singular includes 
plural).
Author2 is the original author who established Bus before 1931.
Author3 is the original author who established Bus cus, before 1931 but 
years after Bus had been established.
Cus was not equipped with a description.
The term "auctorum" expressed the intention to use Bus explicitly not in 
the sense of the original author Author2, but in the sense of subsequent 
authors.
Without citing Art. 70.3, Author 1 stated that disregarding the fact 
that Author2 had only seen specimens of Bus cus, the type of Bus should 
be the nominal species cited by Author2 (Aus aus), not the species 
actually involved Bus cus. This terminology ""Bus Author2" auctorum" was 
correctly employed (another terminology is Bus sensu authors) and 
accompanied by very clear statements in the text.

This kills their new replacement name, because it means that Bus 
auctorum was definitely intended to be replaced, not Bus Author2 in the 
sense Author1 interpreted this name.
Bus Author2 was an available name, Bus auctorum not.

Had Author1 consulted someone who knew the Code, then Bus cus could have 
been fixed as type for Bus under Art. 70.3.2. They would also have been 
told that sensu names are unavailable, and that unavailable names cannot 
be replaced.

Art. 13.1.3 fails because Cus was not proposed to replace "an available 
name", which is demanded. The post-1999 publication cannot be 
interpretated to extract an intention to replace the available name Bus 
Author2.
The second part of the phrase "whether required by any provision of the 
Code or not" does not need to be taken into consideration because the 
first part of the regulation is not satisfied.

Art. 16.1 is satisfied because the name was explicitly indicated as new 
(the fact that Author1 did not know that only an available name can be 
replaced, can be disregarded, the expressed intention to establish the 
name as new is decisive).

Had Author1 intended to replace Bus Author2 and given an incorrect type 
species, this would have been no problem (the type could simply have 
been regarded as given in error, Art. 67.8).

In that case the rest of the reasoning would have worked, Cus would have 
  gotten Aus aus automatically as type and availability for Cus would be 
provided by Art. 13.1.3.

It would have been a new replacement name, and certainly unnecessary.

Even if someone later would fix Bus cus as type for Bus under Art. 
70.3.2, Cus would not become available through that action because at 
the time of publication Cus was not made available. Bus auctorum does 
not become an available name even if their desired type is designated as 
type for Bus under Art. 70.3.2 later - this type designation will always 
refer to the available name Bus Author2, not to the unavailable name Bus 
auctorum.

So Cus remains a nomen nudum, as long as nobody establishes it again as 
intentionally new - preferably after having consulted someone who knew 
the Code...

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 16.06.2020 um 17:46 schrieb Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via Taxacom:
> 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/>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>