Taxacom: [KU SUSPECT SPAM] Re: Article 70.3

Tue Jun 6 23:12:50 CDT 2023

Hi,

I'm not sure I can find where this is included in the old version of the 
code you linked to. Is this discussed in some early opinion or 
something?

Cheers,
Daniel

> In addition: Edition 1 to 3 of the zoological Code
> also had this Art. 70 but this required an author to
> refer the matter to the Commission. Referring to
> Art. 70 (or Art. 70.3? Is this unambiguously clear?)
> in the sense now required has been possible only
> (except for clairvoyants) since Edition 4 has been
> published.
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 23-May-23 13:56, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
>> Dear Daniel,
>> 
>> The nomenclaturally approach would be slightly different as to 
>> authors, but in any case, yes, an act that did not cite Art. 70.3 is 
>> not valid under the Code. Previous regulations, which might have been 
>> effective in 1938, and which are not reinforced in Code-4, have no 
>> effect.
>> 
>> Thank you for providing the literature access web page. However I have 
>> little time and I would prefer being able to click on the concerned 
>> publications "directly". It takes time to search them in a data 
>> resource.
>> 
>> > - De Haan (1829) [= published version of Lyonet's unpublished
>> > manuscript, sometimes referred to by Lyonet's name] used this name,
>> > attributing it to Nitzsch, and published an illustration, making the
>> > name available.
>> 
>> In such a case the name was attributed to Nitzsch, the illustration 
>> was provided by De Haan, this did satisfy the criteria of 
>> availability, so under Art. 50.1.1 the authorship is to be attributed 
>> to De Hann.
>> The type specimen(s) are the ones De Haan had when establishing this 
>> name, in particular the illustrated specimen(s).
>> 
>> > - Burmeister (1838) studied Nitzsch's specimens and manuscript, and
>> > published a text description of P. (N.) cameratus.
>> 
>> Subsequent usage, not nomenclaturally relevant.
>> 
>> > - Giebel (1874) redescribed Nitzsch's original specimens again,
>> > attributing the name to Nitzsch.
>> 
>> Subsequent usage, not nomenclaturally relevant.
>> 
>> > - Waterston (1922) described the genus Lagopoecus, with the type species
>> > P. (N.) cameratus Lyonet.
>> 
>> Type P. cameratus De Haan fixed by this action.
>> 
>> > - Clay (1938) determined that cameratus sensu De Haan/Lyonet and
>> > cameratus sensu Nitzsch/Burmeister/Giebel represent two different
>> > genera: Lagopoecus and Gallipeurus [a synonym of Cuclotogaster]. The
>> > specimens Waterston examined were cameratus sensu Burmeister, not
>> > cameratus sensu De Haan.
>> 
>> At least Clay suggested that these were two different species. This 
>> situation can justify an action under Art. 70.3.
>> 
>> Clay established the nomen novum Lagopoecus
>> > lyrurus for P. (N.) cameratus Burmeister, and corrected the type species
>> > of Lagopoecus to L. lyrurus.
>> 
>> She proposed a correction of the type species.
>> Clay cannot have established a new replacement name (nomen novum) to 
>> replace for P. cameratus sensu Burmeister, not De Haan, because P. 
>> cameratus sensu Burmeister was not an available name. Only available 
>> names can be replaced by new replacement names.
>> This is a very frequent source of mistake, and needs a 
>> reconsideration: Either Clay provided a description for L. lyurus that 
>> she called a nomen novum, or she gave a bibliographic reference to a 
>> previously published description (citing Burmeister's name alone would 
>> not have represented such a bibliographic reference) - in those cases 
>> Clay's name would have been made available as a normal new taxon name, 
>> with its own types, i.e. Clay's specimens and the ones to which she 
>> referred by bibliographic reference.
>> In many cases such a condition is present and the name can be saved 
>> for being used in nomenclature.
>> With bad luck the name was not made available by Clay, then it is 
>> necessary to look for the next author to have made this name available 
>> by mentioning it somewhere with a short description.
>> With very bad luck this may also fail, and another subsequently 
>> established synonym or subspecies would have precedence.
>> 
>> 
>> > Clay is the first revisor of both
>> > Cuclotogaster and Lagopoecus, if that makes any difference.
>> 
>> Probably not. I wonder if deliberate employment of misidentification 
>> comes into play, but it would be useful to know the authorships and 
>> dates of the genera.
>> 
>> It would be admissible to publish an act under Art. 70.3 and refer to 
>> Clay's 1938 publication, to substantiate the statement that the type 
>> species was misidentified in 1922, with a statement that her judgment 
>> is still up to date.
>> As said above, caution with the name to be used for the species 
>> actually involved in the misidentification.
>> 
>> If this helps
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> Francisco
>> 
>> Am 23.05.2023 um 08:04 schrieb Daniel Gustafsson via Taxacom:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I have a question about Article 70.3.
>>> 
>>> Timeline:
>>> - Nitzsch (1818) published the name "Philopterus (Nirmus) cameratus", 
>>> but this is a nomen nudum.
>>> - De Haan (1829) [= published version of Lyonet's unpublished 
>>> manuscript, sometimes referred to by Lyonet's name] used this name, 
>>> attributing it to Nitzsch, and published an illustration, making the 
>>> name available.
>>> - Burmeister (1838) studied Nitzsch's specimens and manuscript, and 
>>> published a text description of P. (N.) cameratus.
>>> - Giebel (1874) redescribed Nitzsch's original specimens again, 
>>> attributing the name to Nitzsch.
>>> - Waterston (1922) described the genus Lagopoecus, with the type 
>>> species P. (N.) cameratus Lyonet.
>>> - Clay (1938) determined that cameratus sensu De Haan/Lyonet and 
>>> cameratus sensu Nitzsch/Burmeister/Giebel represent two different 
>>> genera: Lagopoecus and Gallipeurus [a synonym of Cuclotogaster]. The 
>>> specimens Waterston examined were cameratus sensu Burmeister, not 
>>> cameratus sensu De Haan. Clay established the nomen novum Lagopoecus 
>>> lyrurus for P. (N.) cameratus Burmeister, and corrected the type 
>>> species of Lagopoecus to L. lyrurus. Clay is the first revisor of 
>>> both Cuclotogaster and Lagopoecus, if that makes any difference.
>>> - This classification has been accepted ever since. There is also no 
>>> doubt that Lagopoecus and Cuclotogaster, as currently understood, 
>>> represent different genera, and that the two cameratus-species 
>>> (whatever they are named) are in the correct genus today.
>>> 
>>> Clay implicitly used Article 70.3.2 as the basis for her decisions. 
>>> However, this Article states that "If the latter choice is made, the 
>>> author must refer to this Article and cite together both the name 
>>> previously cited as type species and the name of the species 
>>> selected." Clay did not refer to Article 70.3.2 in her paper, but she 
>>> did fulfill the second half of the requirement.
>>> 
>>> Was the first half of this requirement in effect in 1938? And, if it 
>>> was not, does this matter? I've been trying to find PDFs of old 
>>> versions of the Code, but so far I haven't found any (so another 
>>> question would be: are they available online somewhere where I 
>>> couldn't find them)?
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, if Clay's actions were incorrect because she should have 
>>> cited 70.3.2 but didn't, does this require some action today, to 
>>> stave off any future problems, or is the fact that this 
>>> classification has been used without controversy for almost 100 years 
>>> enough?
>>> 
>>> (all publications can be found here, if necessary: 
>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphthiraptera.myspecies.info%2Fbiblio&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C93b97e88ca304c9cd48708db670d772f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638217079756387383%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GWrX0cFPVDKFJn5at3ES4JsanYwF53NT%2FNchmsR%2B8UM%3D&reserved=0)
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> 
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: 
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: 
>> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: 
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C93b97e88ca304c9cd48708db670d772f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638217079756387383%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jj4wOkRTdWYbvjWLwrSgCsQuLuGqGiw0hbCwMYiiBYM%3D&reserved=0
>> 
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration 
>> for about 36 years, 1987-2023.

-- 
Dr. Daniel R. Gustafsson, Research Assistant Professor
Institute of Zoology Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.

Ask me about chewing lice!