Taxacom: Subspecies PROBABLY described

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

To answer this detail:
Type designations:

"67.2.1. In the meaning of the Code the "originally included nominal 
species" comprise only those included in the newly established nominal 
genus or subgenus, having been cited in the original publication by an 
available name (including citation by an incorrect spelling [Art. 67.6]) 
of a species or subspecies (see Articles 45.6 and 68.2), or having been 
cited there as the deliberate application of a previous 
misidentification (see Articles 11.10, 67.13 and 69.2.4)."

If Rafinesque established a genus, subdivided the genus into subgenera 
and placed nominal species in these subgenera, then the nominal species 
were "included" in the new genus in the sense of this Article.

I agree that a clarification in the Code would be useful. An important 
help is contained in the Glossary's definition of "taxon": "A taxon 
encompasses all included taxa of lower rank".

Best wishes
-----
Francisco

Am 24.02.2022 um 17:17 schrieb David Campbell via Taxacom:
> I would interpret the "reservations" disqualifying it to refer to whether
> this is a new species, rather than being tentative about whether the genus
> assignment is correct.  (As another example, Gardner (1939) stated that "
> *Bolis* is referred to the hospitable group of the Buccinidae with no
> conviction."  when describing the new genus *Bolis*.)
> 
> Reservations about the genus assignment do become an issue relating to
> subsequent type designations - what species are eligible to select as the
> type?  For example, must the type species of a genus have been referred to
> the nominal subgenus in the original paper, if there was no designation of
> a type species?  Rafinesque managed to put all species into different
> subgenera and not include anything in the nominal subgenus for some of his
> unionid work.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 8:42 AM David Redei via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Uh oh, then I will need to be more careful in the future. A few years ago I
>> published a paper in which I wrote this sentence: "It is with considerable
>> hesitation that the new species described in this paper is placed into
>> Sagriva, ..." Art. 11.9.3. says, "A species-group name must be published in
>> unambiguous combination with a generic name" (otherwise it is unavailable).
>> Now I started to worry that one day someone will come forward and argue
>> that my phrase "with considerable hesitation" indicates that the
>> combination was not unambiguous, so my inclusion of the new species in the
>> taxon at a higher rank (genus) was made with "stated reservations",
>> therefore my new species is unavailable... Is there any sense in this? I
>> mean, does it support stability? Why does the Code prohibit expression of
>> uncertainty and the possibility of error in otherwise properly and
>> explicitly proposed taxonomic acts?
>>
>> David Redei
>>
>>
>>