Taxacom: a class of errors in Worms (and similar databases)

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Doug,

Your scenario would apply to names proposed after 1930, because if I 
have not overlooked something (except cases with a very special 
disclaimer) a generic name proposed before 1931 in combination with an 
available species-group name will automatically have been made available 
under Art. 12.2.5.

So do you opt for not setting parentheses if a name is used today that 
was established as Aus bus Smith, 1950, Aus having been unavailable at 
the time for not having had a type species fixed, and Aus was 
established as Aus Dupont, 1970?

The alternative option to solve such a case would be to set parentheses 
in the form Aus bus (Smith, 1950), because the original genus was 
unavailable, nothing can be done with an unavailable name in 
nomenclature, and consequently such a name could not be used subsequently.

Best wishes
Francisco





Am 24.02.2025 um 17:38 schrieb Douglas Yanega via Taxacom:
> On 2/23/25 9:54 AM, Tony Rees via Taxacom wrote:
>> Dear Erikjan,
>>
>> I believe you are right. I cannot think of a circumstance where a species
>> name without parentheses in the authorship should have an earlier year 
>> than
>> its containing genus, so that should be a sign that something is 
>> incorrect.
>> My database (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce83d2aeb083f46bf91b508dd54fa8023%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638760157062827350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cT9lPPFGxL116rre9XYzxYnhO%2FGujEaNZ80IB9siQwA%3D&reserved=0) has inherited a large number of 
>> species
>> binomials from other systems, but they have not undergone rigorous 
>> checking
>> in this respect and possibly never will, until we have resources to 
>> devote
>> to that task. But for other systems with more available editor effort, 
>> this
>> could certainly be a consideration for auto-checking, I would say.
>>
>> Regards - Tony
> 
> There is at least one situation where this is possible: Article 11.9.3.1 
> allows a species name to be made available even when the genus name it 
> is combined with is not. So, if the first publication of a name (in 
> toto) did not make the *genus* name available, but the *species* name 
> was made available, then if someone later validated the exact same genus 
> name, you CAN have a species name that is older than the genus, and yet 
> not in parentheses.
> 
> The comment later in the thread about there being a "blind spot" in BHL 
> such that it will report occurrences of genus names prior to 
> their recognized publication also runs into this same issue: genus names 
> sometimes appear in print *before* they are made available. So, using 
> the recognized date of a genus name as a cutoff would make it impossible 
> to locate records of nomina nuda that preceded the availability of that 
> same name.
> 
> In entomology, these sorts of scenarios play out with some frequency, 
> especially regarding works by certain authors (e.g., Dejean and Chevrolat).
> 
> Peace,
>