[Taxacom] Chasing original spelling of a genus name...
Tony Rees
tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 26 17:37:34 CDT 2021
Thanks Paul, and to the others who have responded both on and off list.
In the light of the above, I have added "Efluegelia Vachard in Massa &
Vachard, 1979" as a published name to IRMNG, to sit alongside the original
spelling Eflugelia, listed as "synonym and unjustified(?) emendation (of
Eflugelia)". I have also created a somewhat convoluted "taxonomic remark"
accompanying this record, which presently reads as follows:
--------------
Nom. corr. Mamet, 2006. This name was originally published under the
zoological Code as Eflugelia, in honor of Erik Flügel. Mamet, 2006,
considering this genus a plant, corrected the spelling to Efluegelia, which
may or may not be permissible under the botanical Code (in zoology, the
original spelling is to be maintained unless subject to a ruling by the
ICZN). Nevertheless Vachard & Cózar, 2010 (although they treat the taxon as
zoological) use the corrected spelling, attributing the correction to a
work by Krainer et al., 2003, however that work uses the original spelling
only (the reference by Vachard & Cózar is presumed to be a mistake). At
present, this taxon (under whichever name is correct) is considered to be a
taxonomic synonym of Fourstonella, and is treated as a botanical name in
IRMNG
(https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11918594)
--------------
I am happy to adjust the taxonomic remark further, if it does not
completely address the issue, which turned out to be a bit more complicated
than originally envisaged!
Regards to all, and keep safe in these times of COVID,
- Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees
www,irmng.org
On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 at 17:46, dipteryx--- via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> From a botanical perspective this is not easy.
>
> For my money the original spelling should be
> maintained, and I assume this will be the majority
> point of view.
>
> However, the phrasing of Art. 60.7 is such that it
> can be read in two ways. There may be those who
> assume that since the personal name of the honouré
> is Erik Flügel this must result in a generic name
> using -ue- and that, thus, Eflugelia is a correctable
> error for Efluegelia.
>
> This would be strengthened by the recent inclusion
> of Art. 60 Ex. 7 which shows a generic name being
> corrected to conform to the spelling of the personal
> name of the honouré.
>
> So, there will not be unanimity in how to handle
> this.
>
> Paul
>
> > Op 25-08-2021 00:45 schreef Tony Rees via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list