Taxacom: Typographic errors mistaken by new names

[Geoff Read]

It seems the example ("General example" of the poster) is masked by
made-up names for taxa and authors and dates. It is much better to use
real names and dates to enable others to do accurate analysis.

A name that is unavailable from one publication can be made available
subsequently by 'anybody' for the same or a different concept. Whether
this is advisable is another matter, but this is the point I was making.
Like a nomen nudum unavailable name can be - see the code Glossary entry.
The principle must be the same. Or am I wrong? Whereas Art 33.3.1 only
concerns prevailing usage whether to use the original name or the
misspelling.

Cheers,
Geoff


On Sat, February 19, 2022 8:19 pm, Carlos Alberto Martínez Muñoz via
Taxacom wrote:
> Dear all,
> Thank you for your replies. One reason why I wrote to Taxacom was to check
> if I missed an evident exit and got lost in the ZooCode labyrinth. From
> your replies, it seems to me that I am not lost.
> Yes, *Cuchicuchancia* is an incorrect subsequent spelling, and not an
> available name from Fulanus, 1800 in the sense of the ZooCode article
> 33.3.
> *Cuchicuchancia* becoming available and valid is limited, as pointed out
> by
> Doug, in that they must be attributed to the original author and not to
> the
> person who changed the spelling. That is the sense of the ZooCode article
> 33.3.1. As far as I have checked, all instances of the incorrect
> subsequent
> spelling *Cuchicuchancia* are attributed to Fulanus, and never to
> Menganus,
> the author of the correct original spelling *Cuchicuchoria*. What makes
> this case so rare is how such a typo has survived for so long despite it
> being unavailable.
> Currently there are two taxonomic concepts implied, one by Menganus
> (updated and more restricted, not including Fulanus), and that of Fulanus,
> also updated and more restricted. Revisiting this issue has some merit in
> that we should aim at having taxonomic concepts based on names that are
> available in the sense of the ZooCode. I see two solutions:
> 1) To ask the Commission to use its plenary powers to conserve
> *Cuchicuchancia* Fulanus, 1800. This has the downside of the real name
> matching a vernacular name in one language and also matching the
> uncorrected original spelling of a family name.
> 2) To propose a new name for the taxonomic concept currently labeled as
> *Cuchicuchancia*. This avoids applying to the Commission and should also
> solve the "homonymy" problem for biodiversity informatics applications.
> I am open to both options. If someone would like to read what I have
> written so far to advise on 1 or 2, please reach out to me.
> Kind regards,
> Carlos
>
> Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
> Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit

--
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz