[Taxacom] Chasing original spelling of a genus name...

Tue Aug 24 14:10:20 CDT 2021

Hi Laurent (also to Valéry Malécot who replied as well as Francisco),

Thank you for that information RE the originally published spelling, which
is clearly Eflugelia (no "ue"). I was then all set to consider the spelling
"Efluegelia" as used in Vachard and Cózar's 2010 review work as a simple
error (subsequent misspelling), but then came across this:

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Rivista_Italiana_Di_Paleontologia_E_Stra/dzYhAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=eflugelia&dq=eflugelia&printsec=frontcover

in which "Efluegelia" is given as a nom. corr., with "Eflugelia" given as
"Eflugelia (sic)", that is, a spelling considered incorrect. This comes
from Rivista Italiana Di Paleontologia E Stratigrafia 112: 338 (2006),
which it turns out is this work:  Mamet, B. 2006. Taxonomy of Viséan marine
calcareous algae, Fernie, British Columbia (Canada). Rivista Italiana de
Stratigrafia e Paleontologia, 112(3), 323-357. So it appears that Mamet
believed that the name required correction, at least when used in botany -
perhaps it was originally described as an animal, I am not sure -  and
Vachard and Cózar adopted the corrected spelling without further comment
(in their 2010 paper, Algospongia are treated as animals, although
previously and also subsequently the same authors treat them as plants,
which is thus my inclination for IRMNG treatment as well).

So, this creates the new question - should Mamet's nom. corr. be considered
a justified or unjustified correction, in botany in particular (if that
makes any difference, which perhaps it does not...) From an off list
comment by Valéry it would seem to be unjustified, but I am happy to
receive any other opinion...

Thanks - Tony

On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 at 22:57, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:

> Hi Tony (& Francisco),
>
> Still not a real full view, but Google Books shows "snippets" of this work:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=dkNWAAAAYAAJ&dq=eflugelia
>
> I have attached what Google returns when I search the volume on
> Eflugelia, Efluegelia, Eflügelia, Flugel and Flügel.
> The genus name seems to be consistently spelled Eflugelia (spellings
> Efluegelia and Eflügelia not present in the text); the name of the
> dedicatee is spelled inconsistently, either Flugel (at least 3 times),
> or Flügel (at least twice).
>
> Hope this helps, L -
>
>
>
> On 8/24/21 12:55 AM, Tony Rees via Taxacom wrote:
> > Thanks Francisco... I Found a copy of Senowbari-Daryan's 2005 work
> > reproduced online where he repeats Vachard's original description word
> for
> > word, citing the name as "Eflugelia". So if that is correct (and I have
> no
> > reason to think that it is not), then Vachard's subsequent citing of the
> > name as "Efluegelia" in his 2010 review paper would appear to be wrong
> ...
> > but real confirmation still needed, ideally.
> >
> > Regards - Tony
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 at 08:38, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Tony,
> >> I have no access to the original source either, but since it is a French
> >> publication, it is possible that the original spelling was Eflugelia. In
> >> French the u is pronounced like the German ü. I occasionally observed
> >> that unexperienced French authors wrote Muller instead of Müller. This
> >> could also have happened in this name. Just a speculation.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >> Francisco
> >>
> >> Am 24.08.2021 um 00:18 schrieb Tony Rees via Taxacom:
> >>> Sorry, 2 typos in the above message, for "Flügelia" read "Eflügelia" (a
> >>> possible/conjectured original spelling), similarly for Flugelia read
> >>> Eflugelia as later listed by Senowbari-Daryan in 2005.
> >>>
> >>> Regards - Tony
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 at 05:26, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear Taxacomers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Having obtained a copy of the 2010 work on Algospongia (fossil group,
> >>>> variously assigned to animals or algae incertae sedis) by Vachard and
> >> Cózar
> >>>> as per a previous post, I note an inconsistency in the spelling of a
> >> genus
> >>>> name, namely in that work this spelling:
> >>>>
> >>>> - "Efluegelia Vachard in Massa & Vachard, 1979" (spelling consistently
> >>>> used therein, note Vachard is the first author of this citing work as
> >> well
> >>>> as of the original name, but 30-odd years later)
> >>>>
> >>>> vs. "Eflugelia Vachard  in Massa & Vachard, 1979" - spelling as used
> in
> >>>> Nomenclator Zoologicus and some other sources
> >>>>
> >>>> "Efluegelia Vachard" has 4 hits in Google Scholar at time of
> >>>> writing, "Eflugelia Vachard" has 7.
> >>>>
> >>>> The original publication is given as: Massa, D. and Vachard, D. 1979.
> Le
> >>>> Carbonifère de Lybie Occidentale: biostratigraphie et
> >> micropaléontologie;
> >>>> position dans le domaine téthysien d’Afrique du Nord. Revue de
> >> l’Institut
> >>>> Français du Pétrole, 34(1), 3-65 , abstract available at
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> https://ogst.ifpenergiesnouvelles.fr/articles/ogst/abs/1979/01/vol34n1p3/vol34n1p3.html
> >>>> , however this does not mention the new generic name in question.
> >>>>
> >>>> One possibility is that the original spelling was Flügelia,
> orthography
> >>>> subsequently corrected in 2 different ways, as per the article "Fossil
> >>>> names dedicated to Erik Flügel" by B Senowbari-Daryan in Facies, 2005
> >>>> (which uses the spelling "Flugelia"), but that is just a guess.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just wondering if anyone has access to the original publication as
> >> cited,
> >>>> and/or can advise of which would be the correct spelling of this genus
> >> name
> >>>> to be cited today (the name is presently listed as a synonym of
> >>>> Fourstonella Cummings).
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe a small thing, but knowing the correct spelling of scientific
> >> names
> >>>> is one of the foundations of biological information sharing and
> linking
> >>>> (and of biodiversity databases...)
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards - Tony
> >>>> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> >>>> https://about.me/TonyRees
> >>>> www.irmng.org
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> 1987-2021.
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
> 1987-2021.
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>