Taxacom: Hogklintia vs Hoegklintia (ICN)- opinions please...

Thu Sep 5 13:31:24 CDT 2024

So, attempting to summarize the above based on that discovery, the
situation appears to be as follows:

1. Dorning, 1981 published an apparently correct new genus name,
Hogklintia, with no diacritics, although this was named after a locality
(Högklint, Gotland, in Sweden) that does have a diacritic (I am presuming
that this does not make the name incorrectly formed as originally published)

2. Eley & Legault, 1988 stated (incorrectly) that Dorning's name was
published with a diacritic, i.e. Högklintia not Hogklintia, which required
a mandatory correction (to Hoegklintia) according to the ICBN (now ICN,
which retains the same provision; note that if this were a zoological name,
the diacritic would simply be dropped since the name is not German in
origin, however that situation does not occur in the botanical Code)

3. Eley & Legault, 1988's "incorrect" name (Hoegklintia) is becoming
prevalent among later workers (including the original author), which
possibly amounts to "prevailing usage", although that may be a concept that
applies under the ICZN, not the ICN.

IRMNG (my database) tends to go for "prevailing usage" (name as used in the
majority of recent papers) as "accepted" for its own purposes, even though
a name may be technically incorrect, with additional explanatory notes as
needed. But does "prevailing usage" convert a technically incorrect name
into a correct name, without application for status as a nom. cons. or
similar, in botany? (I suspect that it does not...)

Your opinions welcome, especially on whether or not I am correct in my
assessment of the situation as outlined above.

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C342f2e1bb0b84064105308dccdd8fa25%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611579064246088%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RkqmC2cXlVDGftScf6ueplJe43MIYFH%2FrARfElfmuHI%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C342f2e1bb0b84064105308dccdd8fa25%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611579064246088%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PX3EwnMFVYKlKmGqi6lQA7XSMI66qI166rLEuigcwtI%3D&reserved=0

On Thu, 5 Sept 2024 at 16:18, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually I missed this passage in the cited work by Eley & Legault, 1988:
> ---------
>  Editor's Note: The original spelling of the generic name for the
> acritarch Högklintia by Doming (1981) does not satisfy the provisions of
> I.C.B.N. Art. 73 because it contains a diacritical sign which is not to be
> used in Latin plant names. The name has therefore been corrected herein to
> Hoegklintia (as provided in Art. 73.6), which becomes the validly published
> form of the name (also see Art. 75.1, 75.3).
> ---------
> However this is incorrect so far as I can see, since Dorning definitely
> spelled his new genus Hogklintia not Högklintia, see
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpismin.com%2F10.1016%2F0034-6667&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C342f2e1bb0b84064105308dccdd8fa25%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611579064246088%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JcxAJFLAFXYXKMRkbRPgItabQXCjvEAV%2FMk4i1dQOxM%3D&reserved=0(81)90037-3 , p. 192. ...
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C342f2e1bb0b84064105308dccdd8fa25%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611579064246088%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RkqmC2cXlVDGftScf6ueplJe43MIYFH%2FrARfElfmuHI%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Sept 2024 at 16:09, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Taxacomers,
>>
>> Just seeking opinions on the correct/"accepted" (=in current use)
>> spelling of an acritarch genus (fossil organic-walled microplankton,
>> treated under the botanical Code i.e. ICNafp).
>>
>> In 1981 Ken Dorning, an acritarch taxonomist, created the
>> genus Hogklintia [sic], based on material from the "Högklint Beds,
>> Högklint, Gotland", along with several species transferred into that genus
>> from elsewhere, namely H. ancyrea, H. cylindrica and H. digitata, in
>> addition to the type species, Hogklintia visbyense n. comb. (Basionym :
>> Baltisphaeridium visbyense Eisenack 1959).
>>
>> Ref. is Ken J. Dorning. (1981). Silurian acritarchs from the type Wenlock
>> and Ludlow of Shropshire, England. , 34(2), 175–203.
>> doi:10.1016/0034-6667(81)90037-3, and is accessible e.g. via sci-hub if not
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> In 1988, Eley et al. started calling this genus Hoegklintia
>> (also Högklintia in their text), presumably treating Dornings original
>> orthography as incorrect based on the name of the type locality, then
>> transliterating ö to oe as permitted (actually, mandated) by the botanical
>> Code.
>>
>> This reference is Eley, Betty E.; Legault, J. A. . (1988). Palymorphs
>> from the Manitoulin Formation (Early Llandovery) of southern Ontario.
>> Palynology, 12(1), 49–63. doi:10.1080/01916122.1988.9989336
>>
>> These authors do not mention the fact that they have altered the
>> orthography of the name from the original, or any justification for this.
>>
>> Since that time, the "-oe-" spelling has gradually permeated the
>> literature  overtaking the "-o-" spelling, as demonstrated in the following
>> table ex Google Scholar mentions, just now:
>>
>> + acritarch
>>
>>             Hogklintia  Hoegklintia
>>
>> 1981-1985       5           0
>> 1986-1990       5           2
>> 1991-1995       3           2
>> 1996-2000       3           10
>> 2001-2005       2           8
>> 2006-2010       2           12
>> 2011-2015       1           9
>> 2016-2020       2           8
>> 2021-2014       1           4
>>
>> Even Dorning himself is using "Hoegklintia" more recently, see e.g. 7
>> uses (and none for the -o- form) in:
>> Le Hérissé, A., Dorning, K. J., Mullins, G. L., & Wicander, R. (2009).
>> Global patterns of organic-walled phytoplankton biodiversity during the
>> late Silurian to earliest Devonian. Palynology, 33(1), 25–75.
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1080%2F01916122.2009.9989665&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C342f2e1bb0b84064105308dccdd8fa25%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611579064246088%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hL4MW7X6El5dqNY7wgKUXQ4oFANsnZd9iiDSEH%2FOCso%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Index Nominum Genericorum, and Index Nominum Algarum, 2 nomenclators
>> (registers of names as originally published), not surprisingly persist with
>> the (original) -o- form, citing the original 1981 publication. Meanwhile
>> the John Williams Index of Palaeopalynology, as reproduced in facsimile on
>> the "Acritax" website, which lists new species as originally described, has
>> a mix of both -o- and -oe- forms, see
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mikrotax.org%2FAcritax%2FJWIP%2FHoegklintia&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C342f2e1bb0b84064105308dccdd8fa25%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611579064246088%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OV%2F%2B%2BSazeMC4si01yF6GBy0ty7suVLt9PqJXv0AKhAU%3D&reserved=0 .
>>
>> For my IRMNG database, I use "accepted" for names in current use, even if
>> technically incorrect, and "unaccepted" for others. What would you do in
>> this case? My inclination is to give Hoegklintia as "accepted", with
>> Hogklintia as an original spelling no longer used by the majority of
>> workers, but I am open to other suggestions...
>>
>> Regards - Tony
>>
>> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C342f2e1bb0b84064105308dccdd8fa25%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611579064246088%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RkqmC2cXlVDGftScf6ueplJe43MIYFH%2FrARfElfmuHI%3D&reserved=0
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C342f2e1bb0b84064105308dccdd8fa25%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611579064402361%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OcHKHh5m7ZxRRG0Jx1GxZeelgzNx5je89YnP4MqRR44%3D&reserved=0
>>
>