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

[Tony Rees]

Thanks, Francisco, that is a useful summary of the position in zoology. It
might be different in botany, however, so if anyone has expertise in that
area, it would be good to know...

For IRMNG purposes I currently have the luxury of avoiding which name might
be "correct" since they can both be set to "unaccepted" names, as
subjective synonyms of Fourstonella according to Vachard and Cózar, 2010.
However if pressed it would seem that the "ue" version is the one in
current use, even if not correct, which is the way I generally incline in
IRMNG in other similar cases (reflecting current use, while noting if this
conflicts with strict correctness...) Maybe botany will save us yet,
although noting that Vachard and Cózar, 2010 treated the taxa as animals at
that time (weird protists comparable to Foraminifera).

Regards - Tony


On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 at 08:35, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
wrote:

> If botany interferes, I cannot say much right now.
>
> In zoology this might be a confusion that could have to do with Art.
> 32.5.2.1. In a name published before 1985 the ü (if German, Flügel is
> German) is corrected to ue, after 1985 to u.
> It is possible that this regulation was misunderstood. The Article was
> meant to state that if the ü is contained in the proposed taxonomic
> name, the this ü is to be corrected to either ue or u. Authors could
> have misunderstood this to mean that if the taxonomic name was based on
> a German word with ü, the ü must be converted to read either ue or u in
> the taxonomic name. Since the name was proposed in 1979, they might have
> misinterpreted this Article to mean that the ü must be converted to ue
> in the taxonomic name, otherwise it must be corrected.
>
> Actually there was u contained in the taxonomic name, not ü, so Art.
> 32.5.2.1 is very far from applying to this case.
>
> Another possible misunderstanding could be based on the assumption of
> subsequent authors that the French original authors did not know that
> German ü must be converted to ue, not to u, and that this could be
> regarded as an inadvertent error, to be corrected under Art. 32.5.
> However those who would argue that "u" is incorrect, could not deny that
> the French authors were responsible for the error, not the printer or
> typesetter. If the authors were responsible to select an unusual
> spelling or a spelling that others may consider as a product of an
> incorrect conversion, this was their decision and not an inadvertent
> error. The authors decided to use this spelling, so it must not be
> corrected under Art. 32.5.
>
> If authors subsequently argued that Eflugelia must be corrected to
> Efluegelia, for whatever reason, and regarded this spelling as correct,
> then in zoology under Art. 33.2.3 we are dealing with an unjustified
> emendation.
>
> If this helps.
>
> Best wishes
> Francisco
>
>
> Am 24.08.2021 um 22:18 schrieb Tony Rees:
> > Aha, I overlooked a statement in Vachard & Cozar, 2010, who wrote (p.
> 208):
> >
> >    "The spelling “Efluegelia”, and not Eflugelia as originally written,
> is
> > justified by Krainer et al. (2003)."
> >
> > This reference is:
> > Krainer, K., Vachard, D. and Lucas, S. G. 2003. Microfacies and
> microfossil
> > assemblages (smaller foraminifers, algae, pseudoalgae) of the Hueco Group
> > and Laborcita Formation (Upper Pennsylvanian-Lower Permian),
> south-central
> > New Mexico, USA. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia i Stratigrafia, 109,
> > 3-36.
> >
> > That work (Krainer et al., 2003) is available online, but makes no
> > reference to such a correction so far as I can see, using the (original)
> > spelling Eflugelia throughout, see
> > https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/296281818.pdf .
> >
> > Maybe they meant to refer to the Mamet paper cited in my last post, which
> > did make such a correction - again whether justified or not, I do not
> know
> > (I am inclining to think not, at this time).
> >
> > Still a bit curious, especially considering the statement given above -
> > unless it is a simple mistake.
> >
> > Regards - Tony
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 at 05:10, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>