Taxacom: Typographic errors mistaken by new names

Tue Feb 22 06:02:35 CST 2022

Hi Geoff,
Please find my replies inline below.

"It seems the example ("General example" of the poster) is masked by
made-up names for taxa and authors and dates."
Apologies if it looked like a nomenclatural case. I thought that it was
clear that it was not. The names, authors, and dates are made up, that is
why it is a general example, in the same way that *Aus* spp., and *Bus*,
and *Cus*, and made-up authors and dates are used in the ZooCode. Neither
the Code nor I are "masking" but generalizing. *Cuchicuchoria* is a made-up
name, inspired by "cuchicuchi", a funny wildcard word that I often used in
Germany back in the day, and -oria, a common genus name ending in the
beautiful millipede family Xystodesmidae. *Cuchicuchoria* is the "anything
myriapod" genus name, which I have been using for some time now in
nomenclatural posts on the "Myriapod Morphology and Evolution" Facebook
group. Fulano, Mengano, Zutano, Esperancejo are wildcard proper names in
Spanish.

"It is much better to use real names and dates to enable others to do
accurate analysis."
I did not want an accurate analysis as feedback. I just wanted general
advice. The real case is complex and old, my analysis is 20 pages long, and
it is still not "accurate". The file also includes images of parts of
publications so that the syntax of the name usages can be seen and
compared. Running the analysis on Taxacom is not appealing to me. That is
why I suggested that interested colleagues contact me directly. I can of
course give it a try here, so that we can all have... errr... fun? ;-)

"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."
Yes, that is correct and would lead (for the general example) to an option
3 which is proposing "*Cuchicuchancia* Martínez-Muñoz, 2022". However,
"possible" does not equate to "meaningful" in this case. Meaningful is to
preserve the author, priority, and history of the misspelling or to propose
a different new name with a new author (options 1 and 2 in my former
email). Option 3 combines not the best but the worst of 1 and 2. One gets
the same name, thus one more "machine homonym" for all eternity, with a new
author, so neither priority nor attribution or history are preserved.
For the real life case (not the general example), *Cuchicuchancia* could
have been made available subsequently by 'anybody' for the same concept (
*Cuchicuchoria* Menganus = *Cuchicuchancia* Fulanus, definitely not) or a
different concept (*Cuchicuchancia* auctorum).

"Whereas Art 33.3.1 only concerns prevailing usage whether to use the
original name or the misspelling."
Article 33.3.1 concerns prevailing usage of *incorrect subsequent
misspellings*, which is the general case that started this thread. What
makes this case different to that referred to in 33.3.1 is that the
incorrect subsequent spelling is not attributed to the publication of the
original spelling, and that both the original spelling and the incorrect
subsequent spelling are in prevailing usage for different taxa. Therefore,
one spelling cannot be chosen over another in the sense of article 33.3.1.

Kind regards,
Carlos

Carlos A. Martínez Muñoz
Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit
FI-20014 University of Turku
Finland
Myriatrix <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyriatrix.myspecies.info%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cca7e07b3c15f4a08c55a08d9f5fb3e5c%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637811281702410615%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=x75tcmOb4jrqr6D9TLqe%2Fqc0RK1UZ9fmWWGpnosFg10%3D&reserved=0>
ResearchGate profile
<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FCarlos_Martinez-Munoz&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cca7e07b3c15f4a08c55a08d9f5fb3e5c%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637811281702410615%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=QYVFDF%2FfUeOBuSLaD%2FiNJuHrcKJshP8KeL8aROBOmn8%3D&reserved=0>
Myriapod Morphology and Evolution
<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fgroups%2F205802113162102%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cca7e07b3c15f4a08c55a08d9f5fb3e5c%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637811281702410615%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=8kyj3nvA3y5%2F%2FxVurqjg9FJq0s0YkfOqEYdar4plD8E%3D&reserved=0>

El dom, 20 feb 2022 a las 1:39, Geoff Read (<gread at actrix.gen.nz>) escribió:

>
> 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
>
>