Taxacom: Which code (ICZN, ICN or something else) applies to Chromista?

Sun Jul 7 18:23:24 CDT 2024

Hi Doug, all,

Just a note that Acritarcha and Calcitarcha, supplied to you as groups
under Protozoa (zoological Code) are more accurately treated under the
botanical Code per their original establishing authors (membership is
probably a bit mixed in practice, being likely representatives of protista,
Chromista and others including likely green algae). Accordingly in my
latest version of IRMNG they are both back under Plantae, where they
started off in fact... So in general names in these groups can be left on
one side if you are compiling lists of available or unavailable zoological
names (with apologies for previous confusion).

Regards Tony Rees, IRMNG

On Mon, 8 July 2024, 8:43 am Douglas Yanega via Taxacom, <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> On 7/7/24 1:48 PM, Markku Savela via Taxacom wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Bothering the list again. Tried to google about this, so far no clear
> > answer.
> >
> > Asking it, because Catalogue of Life appears to use ICZN for
> > Chromista, and naturally I ran into Homonymy problem again...
> >
> > Lepidoptera
> >
> >   Cyclogramma Doubleday, [1847]
> >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.nhm.ac.uk%2Fdataset%2Fbuttmoth%2Fresource%2Fc1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c%2Frecord%2F7673&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf6e6046c8a8646f2f4a808dc9edbd51b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638559914208039356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eQH%2BkKTH1cU9o%2FsYhB5quZRIoxNjlwVw09VQZS%2Ba%2Fic%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >  (currently synonym of Diaethria Billberg, 1820)
> >
> > Detected conflict with Chromista genus (Catalogue of Life)
> >
> >    Cyclogramma (no author or date)
> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.catalogueoflife.org%2Fdata%2Ftaxon%2F8YR37&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf6e6046c8a8646f2f4a808dc9edbd51b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638559914208039356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eO2Lg9jVYMg%2BZf70KTdchxtEUz8vFM1%2FmTsx7iqEV1Y%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > No need for extensive discussion. Just which code applies to
> > Chromista? And if ICZN, whould be nice to know which one wins the
> > "homonymy contest" here...
> >
> The ICZN applies to a significant portion of Chromista and Protozoa
> (below), and homonymy applies to any such names. For this one you're
> safe, however: "Cyclogramma Doubleday, 1847" (the butterfly) has
> precedence over "Cyclogramma Perty, 1849" (the ciliophoran). What's
> troublesome here is that the latter genus is the type of the family
> "Cyclogrammidae" (itself of dubious spelling as opposed to
> "Cyclogrammatidae"), and appears to be unreplaced.
>
> My list of genus-rank chromistan names falling under the ICZN, which I
> believe is fairly accurately screened, contains the following phyla and
> numbers of genera: Ciliophora (2277), Foraminifera (5378), Myzozoa
> (605), Cercozoa (217), Bigyra (90), Heliozoa (39), Acavomonidia (1),
> Picozoa (1), and Radiozoa (1). Tony Rees points out that some groups
> like dinoflagellates and euglenids are very tricky to contend with, due
> to inconsistency. My file contains most of these, to be conservative
> (e.g., dinoflagellates are under Myzozoa). As for protozoa, the phyla
> there are Amoebozoa (357), Euglenozoa (296), Microsporidia (239),
> Mycetozoa (237), Sarcomastigophora (174), Choanozoa (156), Metamonada
> (129), Acritarcha (108), Calcitarcha (55), Sulcozoa (19), and Loukozoa
> (8). I have Tony to thank for much of this screening.
>
> *If any of these phyla should NOT be treated under the ICZN,
> definitively, I would be grateful to know which ones*. Likewise, if any
> are clearly missing (and not just *apparently* missing because of
> alternative classification schemes)
>
> There are, by my best estimate, nearly 1000 cases of homonymy that
> involve one or more genus-rank chromistan/protistan (CP) names. A large
> proportion of these are unreplaced (a bare minimum of over 100 confirmed
> cases, possibly many more), presumably because people who work on CPs do
> not typically read standard zoological literature and vice-versa. The
> advent of internet searches is, in this case, pretty much a disaster for
> people on both sides of that fence, as it were, because the strict
> application of the rules will necessitate the invalidation of MANY
> names, and only with internet searches are all of these cases coming to
> light, in some cases after centuries of both names being in use. The
> problem is slightly less dramatic with extinct taxon names, but it's
> also not that hard to find names of fossil taxa involved in unresolved
> homonymies with extant taxa.
>
> I can see in my genus-rank spreadsheet at least a few other Lepidopteran
> names: Anania, Canopus, Cyphanta, Daria, Elina, Fabiania, Helenia,
> Lepista, Loxomorpha, Trichia, and Valeria, that are pretty certainly
> involved in unresolved homonymy with CPs. Possible additional names are
> Ammoconia, Catharia, Chapmania, Cidaria, Closteromorpha, Crameria,
> Eumorpha, Euploea, Fentonia, Hollandella, Hyalina, Jankowskia, Quadrina,
> Saturnus, and Yania, with even more dubious cases for Acrasia,
> Ancistrina, Aragonia, Bizone, Blanchardia, Ceratium, Danielita,
> Diplodina, Loma, Metacineta, and Trochilia.
>
> So, just for leps alone, I see 38 cases of real or possible homonymy
> with CP genus-rank names. That same pattern will certainly repeat for
> any group of organisms you choose to examine carefully. I hesitate to
> offer to assist people by providing this sort of information, but if you
> are willing to reciprocate somewhat, then I am *very* interested in
> having the help, and it can be very mutually beneficial. That is, I know
> the potential cases, but cannot always be certain that the cases are
> *genuine* (it's possible that one or more names in a set of apparent
> homonyms is actually *unavailable* and does not compete for homonymy)
> or, if genuine, that they require resolution - i.e., where a name is
> presently used as valid (as a genus or subgenus) but is a junior homonym
> (junior homonyms not presently used as valid don't require active
> intervention). *Sometimes a senior homonym qualifies as a nomen oblitum,
> and the junior as a nomen protectum, and those cases are VERY important
> to know about, as they can be published and resolved immediately without
> an ICZN ruling*.
>
> I can offer a list of potential chromistan homonym cases for anyone who
> is willing and able to dig into the details of these potential cases and
> get back to me with clear answers as to their status. I have already
> given the exhaustive list to fellow Commissioner Erna Aescht, who works
> with chromistans (so she needed the entire list of CP cases, which has
> 1581 rows), but can do so for other taxonomists who only want the
> subsets affecting their discipline.
>
> CoL is not a great source, BTW, nor are EoL or ITIS. IRMNG is possibly
> the best all-around, as it is more actively curated for accuracy than
> GBIF. Every aggregator has its share of errors and omissions, and the
> more the process of aggregation is automated, the worse those problems
> tend to be.
>
> Peace,
>
> ---
>
> Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
> FaceBook: Doug Yanega (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>               https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf6e6046c8a8646f2f4a808dc9edbd51b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638559914208039356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OBzU1PECVbtMYzfEkcqCb78C2yCZWSbegPaDEHQ47H0%3D&reserved=0
>    "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 37 years, 1987-2024.
>
>
>