Paleonet: Fossil taxonomy of the 21st Century

[Pierre.Kruse at nt.gov.au]

Dear Bruno
To address your second question, there is already a category for taxa that are
poorly understood to the extent that they are unrecognisable: nomen dubium. The
easy way to deal with such a taxon is to treat it as a nomen dubium, and then
proceed taxonomically as if that taxon did not exist. You will run the 'risk'
that the nomen dubium will eventually be properly diagnosed (eg according to
Article 75.5), which may make some of your new taxa junior subjective synonyms.
The longer way is to apply to the ICZN to have the nomen dubium either
suppressed, or a neotype specimen nominated which adequately characterises the
taxon (Article 75.5). This will definitively rid the scene of the 'polluting'
taxonomic name.
Pierre
_______________________________
Dr PD Kruse
Northern Territory Geological Survey
PO Box 3000, Darwin NT 0801, Australia
Tel: (8) 8999 5451  Fax: (8) 8999 6824
Web: http://www.nt.gov.au/dpifm/Minerals_Energy/Geoscience/


                                                                                
             Bruno GRANIER                                                      
             <granierbruno at orang                                                
             e.fr>                                                           To 
             Sent by:                    PaleoNet <paleonet at nhm.ac.uk>          
             paleonet-bounces+pi                                             cc 
             erre.kruse=nt.gov.a                                                
             u at nhm.ac.uk                                                Subject 
                                         Paleonet: Fossil taxonomy of the 21st  
                                         Century                                
             17/02/2008 03:34 AM                                                
                                                                                
                                                                                
              Please respond to                                                 
                Bruno GRANIER                                                   
             <granierbruno at orang                                                
                e.fr>; Please                                                   
                 respond to                                                     
                  PaleoNet                                                      
             <paleonet at nhm.ac.uk                                                
                      >                                                         
                                                                                
                                                                                




Dear Paleoneters,
The "subject" of my message might look "provocative"! I did it on purpose in
order to initiate a discussion on a set of nomenclatural problems that probably
deserve to be solved.
Among them, the question of the nature of the type(s) and variety of "types"
(holo-, lecto-, para-, topo-, pleiso-) has been partly addressed and will
generate more discussion.

I would like to address 2 other problems:

1 - suppose that we are dealing with a fossil genus (A) that includes several
species: the revision of the type-species lead us to consider it should be
ascribed to another pre-existing genus (B). (A) is therefore considered as a
junior synonym of (B). All species ascribed to (A) should be transfered into
(B).
the author of the revision did not revised the remaining species ascribed to (A)
BUT
1.1. provides the new combinations for all of them. He is consider as the author
of the new combinations, isn't he?
1.2. did not provide any new combinations for all of them. Can he be considered
as the author of the new combinations? or Would it be the first person that
published the "transliteration" (that is who gave the new combination without a
preliminary revision of the species but just to take into account the synonymy
at the generic level)?

(example: the numerous species formerly ascribed to the fossil red algae
Archaeolithothamnium (with Archaeolithothamnium rude as the type-species) and
their new combinations with the modern genus Sporolithon!)

2 - the type of a species is lost, the description is poor (XIXth Century), the
type-locality includes several looking-like forms and it is not possible to
discriminate which is the closest to the type, the type-locality cannot be
found, none of the generic or suprageneric diagnostic features are visible on
the material, ...
The Code(s) of Nomenclature (Botanical and Zoological) list some conserved names
as well as rejected names. Rejected names are the ones that did not fit with the
Code and those that were rejected in favor of a conserved name BUT
there is no "category" to list names that are effectively abandoned and while
establishing lists of species we still find these "one-time quoted" / "no longer
used" forms which are just "polluting the scene".
I cannot remember where and when I read that they were given an unformal
category name by analogy to some softwares ("Abandonware refers to computer
software that is no longer claimed, owned, or copyrighted"). Would you support
the implementation of such a category?

Regards,
Bruno Granier
_______________________________________________
Paleonet mailing list
Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
http://mailman.nhm.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/paleonet