[Zoobank-list] names vs. citations (of names)

[Richard Pyle]

Wolfgang wrote: 

> The Zoological Record informs us about citations of names 
> (usage instances), but there are names that *exist* in a 
> Code-mandated spelling even if such a spelling has never been cited in a
publication. 
> 	 
> Examples:
> 	 
> A name cited as "Agenus Mülleri" also *exists* as 
> Agenus muelleri, even if there is no citation of that spelling.
> A name cited as "Agenus Mülleri" may even *exist* as Agenus 
> muellerorum, when it was explicitly dedicated to Mr. & Mrs. 
> Müller, even if that Code-mandated spelling does not exist as a citation.
> A name cited as "Agenus 4-maculatus" also exists as Agenus
quadrimaculatus,
> etc.

I've been thinking about this exact situation, and so far I do not have a
good answer for ZooBank.  The way I deal with this in Taxonomer is that a
"usage instance" is defined broadly, and may even include "personal
communication".  Thus, once somebody discovers the need to correct a
spelling of this sort (in compliance with the Code rules), if there is no
existing published record of the corrected name to point to, then one may
create a point of documentation/reference ad-hoc to serve as anchor for a
new usage instance, incorporating the corrected name.  But I'm not sure this
is a good solution for ZooBank.

A similar situation exists when one discovers that the historical
interpretation of the gender of a genus name has been incorrect, and
suddenly many of the species epithets are "wrong" in terms of gender
matching, but no corrections have yet been published.

This may require a slightly different solution from the problem you
describe.

It is a very real problem, and one that needs a robust and satisfactory
solution in the context of ZooBank.

> Or, two more common but often debated examples:
> A name published under a narrow genus-concept as "Bgenus Smithi" 
> also *exists* in a corresponding wider genus concept (which 
> includes Bgenus as a subgenus) as "Agenus (Bgenus) smithi", 
> even if that combination has never been explicitly cited.

I don't see this as a problem in need of a solution for ZooBank.  The
creation of a genus-group name simultaneously establishes it at the rank of
full genus and subgenus; but this does not mean that both versions
necessarily "exist" until someone uses the alternate version. (I'm assuming
the capitalized "Smithi" above was unintentional; but I would lump such
examples in the same category as "mülleri" and "4-maculatus".
	 
> And, when a bi- or trinomen is synonymized under a 
> different genus combination, its epithet automatically 
> competes with all epithets in that genus, even if there 
> is no explicit citation of such a binomen.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean in this case. Do you mean:

Aus bus Smith is treated as a junior synonym of Xus cus Jones, and in doing
so implicitly establishes the combination "Xus bus (Smith)" as a potential
homonym of another "cus" within Xus?
	 
David replied:

> One way to deal with this situation is to allow 
> “temporary name” as a status.  Species File Software 
> uses this for junior homonyms that have not yet been replaced 
> and for informal names (“n. sp. 1”) when the database includes 
> a citation to useful information about an undescribed species.  
> Incorrectly formed names would also be treated as temporary 
> names if the corrected name has never been published.

On the topic of unreplaced homonyms, certainly ZooBank should perform the
service of calling attention to such examples, for the taxonomic community
to resolve.  Thus, ZooBank will need to accommodate these things, I think.

> At one time my website (http://orthoptera.speciesfile.org) 
> was showing unpublished combinations for synonymized names 
> transferred to different genera.  For example, Aus xus Smith 
> is a synonym of Aus yus Jones.  Aus yus is moved to genus Bus.  
> I then showed Bus xus (Smith) as a synonym of Bus yus (Jones).  

I used to do something similar in Taxonomer, but now my position is that
species epithets treated as junior synonyms do not have inherent
combinations, and in the database do not link to any parent. Thus, in your
example above, I would only have xus as a synonym of yus, without creating
the combination "Bus xus".

> It seems to me that trying to formally treat names that have 
> never been used complicates a database without sufficient offsetting
benefit.  
> In the Mülleri to muelleri example, I would rather see a database contain
only 
> an editorial comment about the required change and not a listing among the
real names.  
> This would avoid leading users of the database or website into assuming
the corrected 
> spelling had some kind of real usage.

This would be easy to implment, as long as we could come up with a
sufficiently clever algorithm.  We can certainly flag all names that include
incorrect characters (e.g., "ü" and "4"), and probably manage an automated
way to show what the "correct" spelling should be. There are some cases
where this might not be so easy to implement via a computer algorithm (e.g.,
Art. 11.9.5: http://www.iczn.org/iczn/includes/page.jsp?nfv=&article=11).

Much harder to implement via algorithm would be gender agreement (even if
the gender of the genus is known, it is not clear in all cases whether the
epithet was intended as a noun or as an adjective).

Aloha,
Rich



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.