Taxacom: Fwd: Re: Article 70.3

Wed Jun 7 02:05:16 CDT 2023

Copy for those interested,

Paul

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Taxacom: [KU SUSPECT SPAM] Re: Article 70.3
Date: 	Wed, 7 Jun 2023 08:14:39 +0200
From: 	Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
To: 	kotatsu at fripost.org

Hi Daniel,

Oh no, what I linked to was the /International Rules//
//of Zoological Nomenclature/, as of 1926. In 1927
(Budapest Congress), Article 25 was expanded,
leading to the version in force in 1938.

There was a period of 1948 (Paris Congress) to
1961, where various Congresses adopted changes
but these were never organized into a finalized
text, until in 1961 the first edition of the Code (the
/International Code //of Zoological Nomenclature/,
renamed from "Rules") appeared. As far as I know
the first three editions of the Code are not online,
but they appear to be easy to find in book form
(as second hand-books or in libraries).

The current edition of the Code is the fourth one,
withe fifth in preparation.

Paul

On 07-Jun-23 06:12, kotatsu at fripost.org wrote:
> 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 - De Haan (1829) [= published version of Lyonet's unpublished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%7Ca7e008ff2ecf4bb09bc408db67258dfb%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638217184452497465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JH%2FIqJEXNp1O9%2FfdSpQGNEOLoAekAC9%2B5aCABYth0CA%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%7Ca7e008ff2ecf4bb09bc408db67258dfb%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638217184452497465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zhQSM57Yyi1eWUFX6FV6lEG6LnUShwWJAScHrPvFQgw%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration 
>>> for about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca7e008ff2ecf4bb09bc408db67258dfb%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638217184452497465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5nnnCd0P2r8PO7jOFj%2FrG6HUaqgaPvznrbXgsTfOyts%3D&reserved=0