Paleonet: Nomen dubium
granierbruno at orange.fr
Mon Feb 25 16:49:44 GMT 2008
Thank you, Pierre, for this answer that concerns mostly the ICZN!
The ICBN (latest version available on http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm) has a category for "Nomina rejicienda":
Chapter V Rejection of names (Art. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58)A name (...) is illegitimate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published
BUT there is no "legal" category for "Nomina dubia"!
One algal (Dasyclad) example to illustrate the case:
Myrmekioporella mosana (gen. & sp. nov.) by J. von Pia 1925 is only known from a "reconstruction". No specimen were found in the collections of the NHM in Wien, Austria. There is definitively a problem regarding the "type-material", the locality, ... however Bassoullet et alii (1978, p. 170-171) discussed these taxa and did not came with a "firm" statement regarding their status.
The same problem may exist with the many forms described by R. Endo, Saitama Univ. in Japan, ...
> Message du 20/02/08 00:45
> De : Pierre.Kruse at nt.gov.au
> A : "Bruno GRANIER" , "PaleoNet"
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: Paleonet: Fossil taxonomy of the 21st Century
> 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.
> 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
> e.fr> To
> Sent by: PaleoNet
> paleonet-bounces+pi cc
> u at nhm.ac.uk Subject
> Paleonet: Fossil taxonomy of the 21st
> 17/02/2008 03:34 AM
> Please respond to
> Bruno GRANIER
> e.fr>; Please
> respond to
> 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
> the author of the revision did not revised the remaining species ascribed to (A)
> 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?
> Bruno Granier
> Paleonet mailing list
> Paleonet at nhm.ac.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Paleonet