Taxacom: Typographic errors mistaken by new names

Thu Feb 24 01:26:39 CST 2022

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I wasn't put off by the comic made-up
names, but curious as to why you did it that way. Good to see the
background, but I think sticking to the Aus bus method is best, when
there's a hypothetical situation, or maybe one is trying to avoid
embarrassing a modern colleague who may have done something strange.

I return to my first suggestion which was: "whoever *subsequently* [to
Fulanus] applied it [Chuchicuchancia] to a different concept to that of
Menganus is possibly the author of Chuchicuchancia new genus, depending on
the adequacy of the details they published. Fulanus, 1800 is not the
author and date".  So it's a new start, each time the spelling is used.
Who in the sequence of usages is the first to clearly apply the genus name
to a new concept? They are the author. Only you know that as we can't
examine the real situation. Nomenclatural stability and the name as used
now are preserved very simply. Only the author changes. It doesn't matter
(I think) that they might have attributed the name to Fulanus at the time.
Fulanus can't be the author. This presumes the name is really from the
19thC, before stricter code rules came along, and names must be stated to
be new, rather than be deduced to be new, as we often have to do (because
there are no earlier instances). There is no homonymy as the Fulanus
instance of the spelling is permanently not available.

Cheers,
Geoff Read

On Wed, February 23, 2022 1:02 am, Carlos Alberto Martinez Munoz wrote:
> 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* MartÃnez-MuÃ±oz, 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. MartÃnez MuÃ±oz
> 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%7C49cf4c0f518d4d45684c08d9f76701c7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637812844076898529%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=ID1tEgLMluHi2CeYlXWM2QO3LINJmsd%2Biinjtz2Eimg%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%7C49cf4c0f518d4d45684c08d9f76701c7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637812844076898529%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=vebhJBDrES%2FqdHK3Ptaujo3VIW8xewzYPX7U7w%2B%2BFV8%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%7C49cf4c0f518d4d45684c08d9f76701c7%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637812844076898529%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=kKFStccCTlKy5MHOYDaQDczrgrjMmysK27KH5mnfBiI%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> El dom, 20 feb 2022 a las 1:39, Geoff Read (<gread at actrix.gen.nz>)
> escribiÃ³:
>
>>
>> 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 MartÃnez MuÃ±oz 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. MartÃnez MuÃ±oz
>> > Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit

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