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

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 5 13:58:00 CDT 2024 

OK, now summarised in IRMNG, via the following records and notes therein:


   - *Hoegklintia* K.J. Dorning, 1981 †
   <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Faphia.php%3Fp%3Dtaxdetails%26id%3D1114834&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005401635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n1dHdfeAf9HpDqByxSNji2TChmJPAqxPQgOnaaQQkCg%3D&reserved=0>
   - *Hogklintia* K.J. Dorning, 1981 †
   <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Faphia.php%3Fp%3Dtaxdetails%26id%3D1076710&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005401635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gxoF%2BNBU2G%2BogJbJMBMOsEiF%2Bype%2Fas1ys3SewzRzlU%3D&reserved=0> accepted as
   *Hoegklintia* K.J. Dorning, 1981 †
   <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Faphia.php%3Fp%3Dtaxdetails%26id%3D1114834&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005401635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n1dHdfeAf9HpDqByxSNji2TChmJPAqxPQgOnaaQQkCg%3D&reserved=0>

I think this covers it for now, will wait and see if Taxacom community has
any further input...

Cheers - 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%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005401635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IshA8t1tDC9GuX1gOPW%2FttxWTRo%2FoQoWAdBjL%2BrnUG0%3D&reserved=0


On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 04:31, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005401635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IshA8t1tDC9GuX1gOPW%2FttxWTRo%2FoQoWAdBjL%2BrnUG0%3D&reserved=0
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005401635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DhOnaj2sIAqKGcJaTFTBbKAivoOBklfbrOstUmILM40%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%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005557908%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3QvAc2hcMowKPr%2F2OG5JJZSWRgMry0kgJjwFek9GyXE%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%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005557908%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZnTKmNuFNLhgG5pHyehkQ5bkZL%2FstFBng8n69shEkVk%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%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005557908%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fchL1baHUc1h0qggENF%2BR4uuqJ%2FhRIs6qEh1m%2FQiE44%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%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005557908%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5d1bhvEmDJf2CZG7zWK9rZzF5734Nk81Mtu97XvABQM%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%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005557908%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZnTKmNuFNLhgG5pHyehkQ5bkZL%2FstFBng8n69shEkVk%3D&reserved=0
>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6177f78e5c7e490f2e8208dccddcb1ba%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611595005557908%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D7vVff9goR7whqRttZCNr%2FUQWdMXvWVP0%2B809GsJ1cg%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list