Taxacom: prevailing usage - was Re: What to with "Thalpochares gisella Schaus, 1904" vs. "Hayesia grisella (Schaus, 1904)"

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

As Doug explained.

In the Code revision we have not found a solution how to convert Art. 
33.3.1 into a reliable form that will once and forever fix an incorrect 
subsequent spelling as the correct spelling for a name.

If only grisella is used today (in publications, not in internet 
databases or database aggregators), this spelling can certainly be used 
under Art. 33.3.1. Once someone starts using gisella, the community will 
soon have to determine which one of the two spellings is "prevailing". 
Once gisella is used in more publications, passing a certain threshold, 
  the incorrect subsequent spelling grisella will not be protected by 
Art. 33.3.1 any more. Then gisella will be correct, and it will not be 
very likely (though not impossible) that grisella some day returns to 
obtain the sufficiently high usage proportion to become correct under 
Art. 33.3.1 once again.

In the case of Paramaecium the spelling Paramecium was used in a 
proportion of 80-92 % of the internet pages found by Google and Google 
Scholar in 2011.
Those who consider this as satisfying the criteria of "prevailing" usage 
will accept Paramecium as correct under the Code.
The others will accept Paramaecium as correct under the Code.
I do not know the proportions today. These proportions need to be 
determined contiuously, to see which one is currently the correct 
spelling under Art. 33.3.1.

So, as Doug said: Art. 33.3.1 is currently not equipped with fixed 
criteria what actually prevailing usage is. Using an incorrect spelling 
maybe regarded by some authors as correct under the Code, by others as 
incorrect under the Code, depending which usage proportions they 
consider as "prevailing".

In ornithology this seems to have resulted in serious disputes.

So many spellings are not reliably Code compliant now - and they are not 
reliably Code compliant in the future. This problem concerns both the 
frequently used misspellings and the original spellings.

If we retain Art. 33.3.1 we would need a solution how such an incorrect 
subsequent spelling can be determined to reliably fulfil the criteria of 
being in "prevailing usage" - and then fix this misspelling as correct, 
and reject the original spelling as permanently incorrect.
The community made good experiences with Art. 23.9.2 for nomina oblita, 
so something similar could be established here.
Which minimum usage proportion would be useful for publications using 
the incorrect spelling, and how would an author determine that proportion?
Would any author just have the right to state "my grandmother said that 
this spelling is in prevailing usage now" without providing evidence, or 
would the author need to provide evidence for the criteria being 
satisfied, in a nomenclatural act, like in Art. 23.9.2?
Nomenclature is a scientific discipline that relies on published 
evidence. Just claiming something is probably not the way to go.

As said above, in the Editorial Committee we have not found a solution. 
Authors can easily be requested to list 25 publications - but how would 
they determine reliably the usage proportion?
They could list all known publications of the past 50 years that have 
used the original spelling - and then simply list 10 times more 
publications using the misspelling. The act could then be invalidated by 
an author finding more publications using the original spelling.

We came to the conclusion that all this would be more work for the 
members of the community than simply requesting the Commisssion for a 
ruling on an individual case.

Basic line:
- There are still many names out there for which nobody seems to have 
consulted the original descriptions for a pretty long time. Most 
original descriptions are online today - it is only a  matter of time 
until somebody verifies the original spelling.
- If the first author to have discovered the incorrect usage does not 
revert to the original spelling, then another author could do it later.
- Using an incorrect spelling attributed to a certain publication by 
author and year usually creates confusion. Users will immediately 
suspect that something is wrong, ask about senior homonyms, emendations, 
earlier authorships or other error sources, and spend time in ruling out 
candidate reasons why the misspelling is used.

Best wishes

Francisco

Am 12.07.2024 um 23:07 schrieb Douglas Yanega via Taxacom:
> 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,
>