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

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Dave,
Thank you for this precious real-life example.

The genus Cerilocus was made available at that occasion on p. 443 as 
Cerilocus Stål, 1858, because the author used two available specific 
names (C. nero and C. dohrni) in combination with it (Art. 12.2.5).

The name is not Cerilocus Stål, 1859, but Cerilocus Stål, 1858.

Neave 1939: 645 cited the name from 1858, still correct under Code-4.

Art. 12.2.6 is reciprocal, as Doug observed correctly, but this is 
entirely meaningless for the availability of the genus since the genus 
would equally be made available under Art. 12.1 or 12.2.5, depending on 
the situation. Art. 12.2.6 applies also to the genus, but is 
meaningless. The more important Article is Art. 12.2.5, which in terms 
of genus-group name availability covers all cases of Art. 12.2.6 and in 
addition many others, like the one you cited.

It seems that Art. 12.2.6 leads to misinterpretations in that the much 
more important Art. 12.2.5 is overlooked.


Best wishes
Francisco

Am 25.02.2025 um 00:15 schrieb Nicolson, David via Taxacom:
> Dear all,
> 
> Let me put forth an example (from Heteroptera) so people can consider the ramifications.
> 
> In 1858 Stål published two new species names under the genus heading "CERILOCUS. Stål", here:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F15959513&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C0da4e6cf44d7472b472a08dd552ea6ae%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638760381059066704%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=deezcA6BoZFCoKyx6Hiznpq9thtcFosx60Zq6sIIiWI%3D&reserved=0
> 
> There you'll see C. Nero and C. Dohrni, two (new) species.
> 
> My interpretation is that per Art. 12.2.6, this does NOT make the genus available, as it was not a single species. But the two species are available.
> 
> In 1859, the same author made the same genus name available, with the same 2 species plus three more:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F15963309&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C0da4e6cf44d7472b472a08dd552ea6ae%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638760381059085756%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YlLouHk4FQ9Jza89kv8fD%2B5fNb3bH2YR9mpNILrU934%3D&reserved=0
> 
> The 2 original 1858 species are still in use in recent decades (last check a few years back), and still in the 1859 genus, and these 3 names can be listed like so:
> Cerilocus Stål, 1859
> 
> ..Cerilocus dohrni Stål, 1858 [effectively as originally published]
> 
> ..Cerilocus nero Stål, 1858 [effectively as originally published]
> 
> 
> I agree with the assertion that it would not be very helpful to add parentheses to the two species' authorship.
> 
> 
> So while it is useful to get a list of binomina that are non-parenthetical yet preceded the genus being available, such cases cannot be assumed to be in error, as has been noted, they must be checked (and hopefully annotated so that people don't end up needing to come back to ask about it again later).
> 
> 
> If I made errors in assumptions or in deductions, I am very happy to be corrected, but this is how I currently understand things.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave Nicolson
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
> 
> 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
> 
>