Taxacom: Superfluous replacement names (Zoo Code)

[Thomas Pape]

>>> an expressly proposed new replacement name for an older name that is arguably itself unavailable
That would be a new name proposed by means of an indication, as it would not fit the definition of 'new replacement name'. The latter can only be established for an already established name, i.e., there has to be an available name to be replaced.

/Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom
Sent: 18. juli 2024 23:53
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu; Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be>
Subject: Re: Taxacom: Superfluous replacement names (Zoo Code)

 Being "expressly proposed" as a new replacement name (or whatever) leaves too much scope for variation. For example, it doesn't require the expression and the new name to be together in the work. This could be a particular problem when readers look at treatments only, rather than the complete work. So, for example, an author could propose a new replacement name Aus novii on page 10, without any nearby expression of intent. However, if, for example, on page 100, there is a footnote by the author stating that anything called novii in this work is to be understood as a new replacement name, then this is Code compliant.

Another complication that I have seen is an expressly proposed new replacement name for an older name that is arguably itself unavailable on some technicality!
Stephen
    On Friday, 19 July 2024 at 03:00:32 am NZST, Laurent Raty via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:  
 
 Hi Francisco,

If I may, re: " Art. 72.7 and the Glossary entry require that a new replacement name must be "expressly" proposed as such".

"Expressly" is not defined in the Code. All the English dictionaries I know give it at least two distinct definitions; e.g. (Merriam-Webster): 
"1: in an express manner : explicitly" and "2: for the express purpose : 
particularly, specifically". (The same holds true for "expressément" in
French.) It is admittedly mainly used in the Code in the sense of the first definition... But not only -- f.i., in : "corrigendum (pl. 
corrigenda), n. A note published by an author, editor, or publisher of a work, expressly to cite one or more errors or omissions in that work together with their correction.", it is used in the sense of the second definition. The second definition does not actually require that anything be expressed : you can perfectly do something for a specific purpose (which sometimes will be inferrable from context) without explicitly stating that purpose.

If you think the meaning of this word, in 72.7 and in the Glossary definition of new replacement name, should be "explicitly", then perhaps that word should be used instead. The current wording is, in my opinion, open to interpretation.

It would certainly be good to have clearer rules than those we have now, but setting them should be done with great care, I think. Often, the name-bearing type will not be the same, depending on whether you read a name as a nomen novum (inheriting the type of the name it replaces), or as denoting a regular new taxon (in which case the type will be among what is included in the taxon by the author) : forcing the reinterpretation of many names has the potential to be hugely disruptive.

"Virtual tautonymy" is already defined in the current Code (in somewhat broader terms than those I used below, actually -- see Rec. 69A and "tautonymy" in the Glossary).

Cheers, L -



On 7/18/24 13:22, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
> 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://ww/
>>> w.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F25316968&data=05%7C02%7Ctpape%40s
>>> nm.ku.dk%7C9fb9d76a40f94fd8134208dca773fc98%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c
>>> 9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C638569363823675603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
>>> IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7
>>> C%7C%7C&sdata=dEV7zRfmgPrYIU0dz7DJM1Ot2i5sZS8AARHgcVTcvQ8%3D&reserve
>>> d=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://lis/
>> ts.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=05%7C02%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C9fb
>> 9d76a40f94fd8134208dca773fc98%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%
>> 7C0%7C638569363823675603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi
>> LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=juk
>> QRAyqKfhtASd%2FOy4id5Balv%2B8NPVzuZY%2FCezo6ts%3D&reserved=0
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> .
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For 
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://list/
> s.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=05%7C02%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C9fb9d
> 76a40f94fd8134208dca773fc98%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0
> %7C638569363823675603%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ
> IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jukQRAyq
> KfhtASd%2FOy4id5Balv%2B8NPVzuZY%2FCezo6ts%3D&reserved=0
> 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.
>
>
_______________________________________________
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.


  
_______________________________________________
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.