Taxacom: prevailing usage

[Thomas Pape]

Now that "prevailing usage" has been brought up, let me add a few comments:

An Editorial Committee under the ICZN is currently revising the current 4th edition of the zoological Code.
We are painstakingly going through every Article, and as Doug correctly mentions there will be ample opportunity to comment on our proposal. When ready, there will be a public review of at least one year. 

Comments and discussions are, of course, welcome at any time, and Doug has here brought up one of the issues that the Editorial Committee has spent a good amount of time discussing.

The concept of an incorrect subsequent spelling becoming the correct original spelling through "prevailing usage" was introduced into the current Code to promote nomenclatural stability.

In cases like the one brought up here, with "gisella" (original spelling) versus "grisella" (spelling in use), it would appear straightforward that nomenclatural stability is promoted by accepting the spelling that is being used, rather than enforcing a spelling that is no longer being used.

However, other cases are less straightforward, and allowing decisions (nomenclatural acts) that require circumscribing "a substantial majority of the most recent authors" may by its inherent subjectivity lead to instability.

How many times should the original spelling "grisella" appear in scientific works before "a substantial majority of the most recent authors" have switched back to the original spelling? What if one author interprets "most recent authors" to include those from the last five years, while another base the tally on 50 years?

I am not here arguing in favour or against 'prevailing usage', just showing that there is no unambiguous or clear-cut solution.

What I do think will greatly promote nomenclatural stability, is to populate ZooBank with all animal genus-group and species-group names, make registration of new names mandatory, and expand the capacity of ZooBank to handle also nomenclatural acts.

This certainly is a colossal amount of work, and we would have to design and implement a 'vetting' mechanism for expert appraisal and correction -- which would need a small secretariat. However, the first and most important step of populating ZooBank with the most relevant names is by no means unattainable, as shown by the continuous flow of nomenclatural data into ZooBank -- and the infrastructure emerging from data custodians like Catalogue of Life, GBIF, IPNI, ITIS, MycoBank, WoRMS, etc.

/Thomas Pape

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Douglas Yanega via Taxacom
Sent: 12. juli 2024 23:07
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
Subject: Taxacom: prevailing usage - was Re: What to with "Thalpochares gisella Schaus, 1904" vs. "Hayesia grisella (Schaus, 1904)"

On 7/12/24 6:40 AM, Markku Savela via Taxacom wrote:
> But, everyone thereafter seems to be assuming "Thalpochares grisella 
> Schaus, 1904". Did I miss a justified emendation somewhere? Or is 
> there some other "grisella" and my literature reference is wrong?
>
> Should we use "Hayesia gisella (Schaus, 1904)" or "Hayesia grisella 
> (Schaus, 1904)"
>
It depends on whether the uses of "grisella" fulfill the following criterion for prevailing usage:

"adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published."

If that statement is true, then the spelling "grisella" must be accepted as the correct spelling under ICZN Article 33.3.1:

"33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling."

Is that criterion subjective? Yes, it is. But that's the criterion, as things stand presently in the Code. That may change dramatically in the next Code edition, because people find the rule hard to apply objectively, and some argue that all names should keep their original spelling regardless of subsequent usage.

Since the topic has come up, let me pose the question for people following this thread:

Which do you think is more likely to cause instability in the determination of the correct spelling of a name:

(A) subjectivity in the application of 33.3.1, where some people may argue that the non-original spelling has not been used often enough to replace the original spelling (resulting in different people using different spellings), or

(B) the automatic reversion of all names in zoology to their original spellings, *even when those original spellings are no longer in use* (resulting in all published and digital catalogues and nomenclators suddenly containing many names whose spellings are no longer ICZN-compliant), and requiring taxonomists to submit a petition to the Commission if they wish to retain a non-original spelling that is presently widely accepted?

Examples relevant to A would include the present case, if Markku decides NOT to accept grisella, while other lepidopterists continue to use it.

Examples relevant to B would include names like Paramecium, Phlebotomus, or Polybothris, all of which are non-original spellings in prevailing use, but would revert to Paramaecium, Flebotomus, and Polybotris if the "prevailing usage" clauses in Article 33 are removed from the Code (and unless the Commission is petitioned to retain them).

Those are the two alternatives facing the Commission presently. When the draft of Code 5 is released, you WILL have an opportunity to weigh in on the issue. Option A is the status quo, option B is the one proposed for Code 5.

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%7C85b4aabeeab94e2745e208dca2cb58f2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638564241481838248%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WIN%2BJMcxCIJdu4t4UUHv9L%2BOVHWrn5PjEu1o%2BUl3wF4%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.