Taxacom: Superfluous replacement names (Zoo Code)

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Good points. Thank you Geoff for this example.

The Code does not know the term "superfluous replacement name". This is 
a nice feature of WoRMS, but not based on the Code. Either a name is a 
new replacememnt name, or it is not a new replacement name.
C. fabricii is certainly not an unjustified emendation for Lumbricus 
capitatus, as claimed by WoRMS. Unjustified emendations are subsequent 
misspellings of previously established names, fabricii is not a 
misspelling of capitatus.

The new name C. fabricii Blainville, 1828 was made available at least 
because it was equipped with a bibliographical reference to a previous 
description (Fabricius 1780: 279). It was probably also a combined 
description of a new genus and a single new nominal species (however L. 
capitatus was also mentioned, not only C. fabricii).
Blainville confirmed that he knew this species only from the Fabricius 
1780 description, which means that the name-bearing type for C. fabricii 
was the name as for L. capitatus Fabricius, 1780. This would would only 
make C. fabricii an objective synonym of L. capitatus if L. capitatus 
was based on a single specimen (holotype), for which I see no indication 
in the Fabricius 1780 description. So the name was made available in a 
regular form and should (right now, under Code-4) be a junior subjective 
synonym of L. capitatus.

However it seems clear from the context that C. fabricii was proposed 
for the reason Laurent explained, and that it was apparently meant to 
serve as a new replacement name.

In the revision of the Code the Editorial Committee is aware of the 
situation and we are preparing to propose for Code-5 some new Articles 
to clarify the conditions for accepting new names as new replacement 
names - and also to set the limits. Not every new name that was proposed 
with a senior synonym having been mentioned, is a new replacement name 
for this senior synonym.
The statement in WoRMS is somehow reasonable: "It would be anarchy if 
original species-group names could be replaced by a different 
species-group name in later publications without a reason."

Art. 12.2.3 does not provide any conditions or limits, but Art. 72.7 and 
the Glossary entry require that a new replacement name must be 
"expressly" proposed as such.
This implies that for being admissible as a new replacement name a new 
name must be accompanied by an expressed indication or statement 
demonstrating an intentional act of replacing an available name for 
nomenclatural reasons. The existence of the previously established name 
must be indicated, reflecting the awareness of the author of the 
availability of that name.

However, as Laurent pointed out, for a long period in the past it was 
considered an unwritten convention to avoid tautonymy in situations 
where a new genus was proposed with a tautonymous nominal species 
included (often the specific name was borrowed to serve as the new name 
for the genus).
This convention has survived in botany, but not in zoology, where 
tautonymy became widely accepted around 1900 and it even became a 
desired mode of type species designation (type by absolute tautonymy). 
In the Editorial Committee for the 5th edition of the Code we would 
propose including a regulation that this situation - a replacement of a 
specific name to avoid tautonymy before 1900 - should be accepted as a 
proposal of a new replacment name, also in the absence of an expressed 
indication. The tautonymous species-group name must be mentioned explicitly.

In Blainville's case we do not have what we call absolute tautonymy in 
zoological nomenclature, but virtual tautonymy. The reason to replace 
such a name was apparently the same convention.

We would be grateful for more examples of this kind, if somebody knows 
more examples. Laurent's definition for "virtual tautonymy" looks fine 
to me. We could eventually use it for a Glossary definition and include 
this term in the new regulation.

Best wishes
Francisco



Am 18.07.2024 um 09:40 schrieb Laurent Raty via Taxacom:
> Hi,
> 
> It seems obvious that Capitella fabricii Blainville must have been 
> intended as a new replacement name (nomen novum; see Art. 12.2.3) for 
> Lumbricus capitatus Fabricius, introduced by Blainville to avoid a 
> situation of virtual tautonymy. (I.e., to avoid using a binomen that 
> would combine a generic and specific name of same derivation.)
> 
> This replacement was certainly not made "without a reason"; but it was 
> made for a reason that the current Code does not recognize as valid (see 
> Art. 18).
> 
> Cheers, Laurent -
> 
> 
> On 7/18/24 05:57, Geoff Read via Taxacom wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Maybe someone could advise whether I'm on the right track with this 
>> comment
>> below. It doesn't seem to be a situation explicitly dealt with in the Zoo
>> Code that I can see, but we at WoRMS occasionally find these unnecessary
>> new names.  Unjustified emendation is more for spelling alterations of a
>> few characters in the code examples given, but here I would like to apply
>> it to a whole new name.  'Substitute name' is what these new names are
>> mostly categorised as when mentioned in the Code, but how to treat them
>> when they are unnecessary does not seem to be explained.
>> "Nomenclature. Junior objective synonym (Capitella fabricii is a
>> superfluous replacement name for C capitata). When Blainville named genus
>> Capitella he named the species as Capitella fabricii, a new name for
>> Lumbricus capitatus. It can be treated as an unjustified emendation
>> (Article 33.2) and is not possible in nomenclature, but sometimes early
>> taxonomists tried to do this. It would be anarchy if original 
>> species-group
>> names could be replaced by a different species-group name in later
>> publications without a reason. Mostly subsequent taxonomists ignored this
>> name, or only included it as a junior synonym to C. capitata, but Grube
>> (1850) used it as valid."
>> Blainville (1828: 443) is here:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F25316968&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C32d0f0a4d5b541a3d1a008dca71bf635%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638568985752307478%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=quvY6Xt7Y24bcxM0z9Mtje93ybFkVzjE11%2ByyfOY13E%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Cheers,Geoff
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 
> .