Taxacom: Hogklintia vs Hoegklintia (ICN)- opinions please...
Tony Rees
tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 6 01:37:28 CDT 2024
Thanks, Paul for that information.
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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014676948506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AQut8C4vVGyR6JK7YUo7X38wGL9uDXQpSDsaRhTM5mM%3D&reserved=0
On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 16:00, Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> 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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014676948506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5XJVSlse3M7knHccSlS6sQjRcVIQxRgdSaUM%2BEJr0Vw%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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014676948506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rXW2hr1EJ0Qv7dKV6aCgKoYZMwl91P2l9gPU1aE6Dyc%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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014676948506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5XJVSlse3M7knHccSlS6sQjRcVIQxRgdSaUM%2BEJr0Vw%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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014676948506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AQut8C4vVGyR6JK7YUo7X38wGL9uDXQpSDsaRhTM5mM%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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014676948506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AQut8C4vVGyR6JK7YUo7X38wGL9uDXQpSDsaRhTM5mM%3D&reserved=0
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014676948506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nkYNnSNrUtIzanNdKQiAmeFKItyhfTlC7kyj4iqZxRo%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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014676948506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CLSH%2FLLZTKKp%2BL1DLifDr9UFgFAZwqiwnVTg5Ae2lIs%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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014677104792%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4BaItNdSK%2BNexEryA0DL302a%2FF8W4TnLK6v3xCkFxEg%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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014677104792%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1r1md%2Fb7pKDfoyYkxIo6YDhFUsdIbKNId4L2G5eMRgA%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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014677104792%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LTDE1s0LpBMJG00AEf3b%2FrTNu0i8Cc41Wiib3TnSTaE%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%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014677104792%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4BaItNdSK%2BNexEryA0DL302a%2FF8W4TnLK6v3xCkFxEg%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C2a704a07269842179ef108dcce3e69e6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638612014677104792%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o%2FFsB3pDzGKVbphEqwMWOoMrLDSmVHzoJ0S8EukH8Qw%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.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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