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

Tue Feb 25 13:39:02 CST 2025

> Speaking of gender, these have been in use but look to likely be
adjectival... Do these need modification for gender concordance?
> Ledermuelleriopsis toleratus Kuznetsov, 1987
> Ledermuelleriopsis indiscretus Dönel & Sa. Dogan, 2011

Both should be corrected. *Toleratus* is only an adjective, and needs to
agree with feminine -*opsis. Indiscretus *should also be corrected. In the
original description it is *indiscretus* (trusting this source
<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fzenodo.org%2Frecords%2F5263023&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C9909eb7d58e24e016d1108dd55d417e0%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761091901550205%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYC4Ffd%2BmgfW8uf2hTzWQ3gUtZIfa1ipYGIIi7rP70M%3D&reserved=0>), and the authors note that it means
"undivided". This seems, to me, to be a decisive note that it is used
adjectivally by the authors, so under Article 31.2.2 it should be
considered an adjective, and changed. *Indiscretus *was used as a noun in
medieval Latin for "foolish person", so there would be an argument that it
should be a noun, otherwise, but the meaning was different than the authors
noted.

R

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 7:49 AM Nicolson, David via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> First off, many thanks to Francisco and others for helping me see my error
> with Cerilocus Stål 1858, and clarifying things generally. Very helpful!
> And apologies for the diacritic corruptions (e.g. on Stål), not sure why
> that's happening.
>
> As for cases AFTER 1930, here is an example, this one from a mite group...
> These are the relevant pages:
> Willmann (1951: 140) in https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zobodat.at%2Fpdf%2FSBAWW_160_0091-0176.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C9909eb7d58e24e016d1108dd55d417e0%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761091901569477%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BlUAybSKtBn%2BCxZLSGvfJBnm0tWOwnfIDwT%2Brdlh8P4%3D&reserved=0
> [50th page of PDF]
> Willmann later (1953: 487-488) in
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zobodat.at%2Fpdf%2FSBAWW_162_0449-0519.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C9909eb7d58e24e016d1108dd55d417e0%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761091901584913%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jV%2Bp5RuQH1CqPDKpzoBgQGDu7Jfz0ZCJf6oAk1P9Hh8%3D&reserved=0 [39th page of PDF]
>
> Carl Willmann (1951: 140) noted two species (2nd one noted as new, but
> 1953 work says 1st name WAS new, though not described):
> "121. Ledermülleriopsis triscutata Willm." includes just information about
> where it was collected, and is not available per Art. 13.1.
>
> "122. Ledermülleriopsis plumosus nov. spec." notes where it was found and
> provides a few characters (size and location/length of the "feathered
> hairs"), which I believe makes the name available.
>
> There is no separate description for the genus, which seems to be not
> available from this post-1930, pre-1960 work (Art. 13.3).
>
> LATER, Willmann (1953: 487-488) lists "Ledermülleriopsis triscutata
> Willmann, 1951" and notes that he had (in 1951 work) given that new species
> name, but without properly describing it, and he proceeds to give a
> description and type for the genus ("Genotypus: Ledermülleriopsis
> triscutata nov. spec."), and then to describe that particular species
> (again, as nov. spec.).
>
> "Ledermülleriopsis" is corrected per the Code to "Ledermuelleriopsis"
> (apparently based on German word(s)). Per Art. 30.1.2 (see Example) the
> suffix -opsis indicates it is feminine, and it was made available in 1953
> with the type's name given in feminine adjectival form (L. triscutata).
>
> The genus & two species have been in use in recent decades, and I believe
> we can conclude from this that the genus and its type speices date to 1953,
> and one species dates to 1951, like so:
> Ledermuelleriopsis Willmann, 1953
> ..Ledermuelleriopsis plumosus Willmann, 1951 [oh, it looks like this need
> to be "plumosa"?]
> ..Ledermuelleriopsis triscutata Willmann, 1953
>
> Speaking of gender, these have been in use but look to likely be
> adjectival... Do these need modification for gender concordance?
> Ledermuelleriopsis toleratus Kuznetsov, 1987
> Ledermuelleriopsis indiscretus Dönel & Sa. Dogan, 2011
>
> Again, I am very happy to be corrected if I got something wrong here !
>
> I have other examples from 1931-1960 if there is a desire to see if they
> might be helpful for discussion or clarifying the Code going forward, but
> perhaps I won't write as much accompanying narrative ;-)... E.g.:
>
>   *
> Willmann also described 3 species (1951) in the genus Cheylostigmaeus
> (another mite), although it wasn't made available (by Willmann) until
> 1952...
>   *
> Villiers described 2 species (1948) in the genus Jamesa (Heteroptera:
> Reduviidae), although it wasn't made available (by Villiers) until 1949...
>   *
> Hinton described 2 species (1939) in the genus Hexacylloepus (elmid
> beetle), although it wasn't made available (by Hinton) until 1940...
>
> All as I understand them, at least...
>
> Regards,
> Dave Nicolson
>
>
> >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:54:53 +0100
> >From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> >To: <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Taxacom: a class of errors in Worms (and similar databases)
> >
> >Dear Dave,
> >Thank you for this precious real-life example.
> >
> >The genus Cerilocus was made available at that occasion on p. 443 as
> >Cerilocus St?l, 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 St?l, 1859, but Cerilocus St?l, 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 St?l published two new species names under the genus heading
> "CERILOCUS. St?l", here:
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F15959513&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C9909eb7d58e24e016d1108dd55d417e0%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761091901598863%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=k4k7wI8OfBsa1jEY82vukrkMZYXK4Eqy59kGFbig92g%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%7C9909eb7d58e24e016d1108dd55d417e0%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761091901611829%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=H7WIphzSdWuWqXM3EAleDAFnJHrm9H6azVq7v6%2Bm6cg%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 St?l, 1859
> >>
> >> ..Cerilocus dohrni St?l, 1858 [effectively as originally published]
> >>
> >> ..Cerilocus nero St?l, 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
>
>
>

-- 
Richard Littauer | burntfen.com <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burntfen.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C9909eb7d58e24e016d1108dd55d417e0%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638761091901623892%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=evKUQbZ%2BCGDV4w3KM26N8eNPDyyLHhl%2BVtlnBKEKXl8%3D&reserved=0> | socials:
richard.social