Taxacom: Hogklintia vs Hoegklintia (ICN)- opinions please...
Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Fri Sep 6 02:01:54 CDT 2024
The ICNafp does not know anything like "prevailing usage"
except as a reason to conserve a spelling.
As discussed earlier, the /Shenzhen Code/ is somewhat
ambiguous about diacritics that are present in geographical
or personal names, but not present in the original spelling of
scientific names based on those names, but I still assume that
the majority feeling will be to go by the original spelling.
Paul
On 05/09/2024 19:58, Tony Rees via Taxacom wrote:
> 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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211147999%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D9r2VdH1Dfon6tYaL%2FshannvMremmfr9JAiqPDB6AHA%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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211147999%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8nIL6QnsPt9C75JKHGIicbJhX3S9ZGNhbZ1z0a2apKA%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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4cunBgDg2FO3i7MUtUWvpVJPdofdnj1KNI2DMph1wAs%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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yZflHMeDkI65slg2Kp5jW9JFSkR7Rp8sYmJYH%2BCk6%2Fg%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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yZflHMeDkI65slg2Kp5jW9JFSkR7Rp8sYmJYH%2BCk6%2Fg%3D&reserved=0
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dQTpAI7kRewuyb6WIoRXGFtpbB0vLOGLS05%2FRYbsoP8%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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3E4TzN%2FcX67bW29N8Vd8iNhNox2amSfixGywBgsfqEw%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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yZflHMeDkI65slg2Kp5jW9JFSkR7Rp8sYmJYH%2BCk6%2Fg%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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bTRP%2Bi7EEjfEnp6xeifLJhoOMOAeLhgS0y%2FUfrafeZs%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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M9BRNR%2F7P9zJOB6w3Fl1WVSLjx9ofaH0PdtLnqeiwys%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%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yZflHMeDkI65slg2Kp5jW9JFSkR7Rp8sYmJYH%2BCk6%2Fg%3D&reserved=0
>>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cdc83361c4e254c883ce808dcce392d5d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638611992211304270%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dQTpAI7kRewuyb6WIoRXGFtpbB0vLOGLS05%2FRYbsoP8%3D&reserved=0
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list