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

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Doug,

Am 24.02.2025 um 19:13 schrieb Douglas Yanega via Taxacom:
>> 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.
> 
> Actually, I think the correct Article is 12.2.6, because 12.2.5 refers 
> to previously-existing species names published by other authors; 12.2.6 
> is the simultaneous proposal of a new species and a new genus. That 
> aside, you're correct, that prior to 1930, this would not happen unless 
> the genus name was unavailable for some other reason, such as being 
> originally published in synonymy.

12.2.5 only talks about "available specific names" (not "previously 
existing species names") and covers, from the part of the genus, also 
the content of Art. 12.2.6.

If a new generic name was proposed without description and two species 
were contained, one if it new, one old, only Art. 12.2.5 applies, not 
Art. 12.2.6.

Art. 12.2.6 provides availability in addition for the new species in 
cases where only the genus had a description, intentionally also thought 
for the new species. The new genus in such a scenario has no problems in 
such a case, it would be available under Art. 12.1.

If intentionally only the species had a description and the genus not, 
the genus would have no problem either because Art. 12.2.5 would apply 
(the species would be made available at this occasion under Art. 12.1, 
and instantly the genus would contain an available species).


 >> 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.
 >
 > Putting parentheses will only confuse people if the original combination
 > and the present combination are identical. Any sensible taxonomist will
 > remove the parentheses if they notice this.

I personally agree with you in this point. It is probably the best solution.

Literally Aus in Aus bus Smith, 1950 is not a generic name, so the 
original combination would have to be cited as "[no genus] bus" or 
"[unavailable genus] bus".
This is nowhere done, all taxonomists cite the original genus as Aus as 
if it was an available name. So it is more convenient to behave as if 
Aus would have been an available name for the purposes of Art. 51.3.

This however produces the next challenge:
What happens if the unavailable genus Aus is spelled Aus in 1950, and 
Dupont makes the name available in the spelling Aous in 1970?
For citing Aous bus Smith, 1950 today: Shall there be parentheses or not?

If Aus as used by Smith 1950 was a misspelling of a previously 
established name Aous Wang, 1910, the name as used today would have to 
be cited as Aous bus Smith, 1950 without parentheses (Arts. 11.9.3.2, 
51.3.1).

But if Aous is made availablle in the future I think parentheses must be 
set, because the spellings differ, and Aus in 1950 was not an available 
name that could qualify for an incorrect spelling of Aous Dupont, 1970.

We are currently discussing this issue in the Code revision, to see 
which one would be the best solution we could propose for Code-5. 
Currently this represents a gap in the Code. This is why I asked you for 
advice.

Francisco