Talk:Acis ionica

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Acis orientalis[edit]

I see that you added the statement at Acis ionica that Acis orientalis is an invalid name because the page number is not given in the protologue. Do you have an independent source for that claim or is it just your opinion? IPNI accepts the name. Given that Art. 41.6 allows incorrect journal names and dates, it seems difficult to argue that a page number is essential, not withstanding Art. 41.5. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but it seems Strid cited Art 53.1 in his treatment, this article deals with homonyms. Strids paper. Am I right? Andyboorman (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page number "40" is absent from the whole paper of Strid, only the page range of the whole article ("39–42") is cited. Article 41.5] (with which I have made my personal experience) clearly says that "On or after 1 January 1953, a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name is not validly published unless its basionym or replaced synonym is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication, with page or plate reference and date". Maybe the indication of a wrong page would be treatable as a correctable error under Art. 41.6, but not a page range, as it is here the case. I have also seen the protologue of the basionym; it is limited to p. 40 (Name, type, diagnosis in Latin and description in English); on p. 39 there is an introduction with historical review, after the protologue, on pp. 41–42, there is an extensive list of localities and a discussion on differences of similar species, protection and cultivation followed by references and acknowledgements.
Another example :
  • Ophrys vernixia subsp. orientalis Paulus, Ber. Arbeitskreis. Heimische Orchid. 18(1): 43 (2001) was recombined to:
  • Ophrys speculum subsp. orientalis (Paulus) Paulus & Salk., Arbeitskreis. Heimische Orchid. 24(2): 7 (2007), without exact basionym page, giving only the page range of the whole article "38–86" instead of "43". As you can see here, this name is regarded as invalid by IPNI, even though Paulus is also the author of the basionym. This was corrected in an erratum here:
  • Ophrys speculum subsp. orientalis (Paulus) Paulus & Salk., Ber. Arbeitskreis. Heimische Orchid. 25(1): 302. 2008. This gives "43–45" as basionym page, and in fact the protologue starts at p. 43 and ends at p. 45. This correction was overlooked by IPNI until now, just as the issue with Acis orientalis. --RLJ (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand the literal meaning of Art. 41.5, but:
  1. The odd consequence of Art. 41.5 and Art 41.6 appears to be that if you give the wrong publication, page number and/or date, that's o.k., but if you omit one of them, it's not. I personally doubt that this is the correct interpretation, but either way, you and I should not attempt to interpret the ICNafp. Which is why I asked you what source was used. IPNI and WCSP accept the replacement name. So long as they do, so should Wikispecies.
  2. The Wikispecies entry is inconsistent – on Strid's interpretation of Art. 53.1, in which you can't say that Leucojum ionicum Kit Tan, Mullaj, Sfikas & Strid (2004) is a synonym of Acis ionica Bareka, Kamari & Phitos (2006) and then use the latter name as if it were correct. Either they are not synonyms, and there are two taxa, or they are synonyms, and a name based on Leucojum ionicum Kit Tan, Mullaj, Sfikas & Strid (2004) must be used as it has priority.
Peter coxhead (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RLJ: I asked IPNI about this, and they have replied to say that Strid's name is acceptable. Their reasoning is based on Art. 41.5 Note 1: "For the purpose of Art. 41.5, a page reference (for publications with a consecutive pagination) is a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym or replaced synonym was validly published or on which the protologue appears, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive with that of the protologue." In their e-mail reply, they say "Although article page ranges are not always acceptable, if the entire article or range is about the species then a range is fine. There is a full and direct reference, including page numbers, given in the reference section. In this instance anyway, it is clear that the range is coextensive with the protologue." Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The different issue is whether Strid's interpretation of Art. 53.1 is correct, and what you have to do if Acis ionica based on Leucojum ionicum Kit Tan, Mullaj, Sfikas & Strid (2004) is blocked by a prior and different use of ionica in Acis. I don't entirely understand the issue at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for asking! Together with the wide definition of "protologue" in the glossary this is acceptable. Certainly a pragmatic way to handle this. I think basionyms should better be referenced by single pages to prevent confusion.--RLJ (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rafaël Govaerts of WCSP has now pointed out that if they are the same species, no nomen novum was needed, so Acis orientalis is a superfluous name, and he has updated the entry at [1]. The reason is that Art. 11.4 applies:
"For any taxon below the rank of genus, the correct name is the combination of the final epithet of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon at the same rank, with the correct name of the genus or species to which it is assigned, except (c) ...if the resulting combination ... would be illegitimate under Art. 53. If (c) applies, the final epithet of the next earliest legitimate name at the same rank is to be used instead or, if there is no final epithet available, a replacement name or the name of a new taxon may be published."
Here the transfer of the epithet of Leucoium would result in an illegitimate homonym, so then the next earliest legitimate name at the same rank should be considered. This is "Acis ionica Bareka, Kamari & Phitos (2006)", and its epithet "ionica" is available, so since Strid says they are the same species, he should have used this name. So, contrary to what I wrote above (based on assuming that Strid was correct), Wikispecies is right to use Acis ionica Bareka, Kamari & Phitos (2006), but we should add "nom. superfl." to Acis orientalis based on WCSP. (And I need to move the English Wikipedia article back again – sigh!) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for asking Govaerts, too! Ex. 14 and 17 of Art. 11.4. seem to illustrate the issue. - RLJ (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great work on this taxon. Andyboorman (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]