User talk:Dyanega

From Wikispecies
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Monster Iestyn in topic Bidoma
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! Lycaon 05:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doug! Stho002 23:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Dear Dyanega, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autopatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies autopatrolled user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

Theres always a need of patrolling files edited by unregistered users, and if you think you have a good understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines and want to help out with patrolling, you can request patrol rights at Patroller. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Protosclerogibba australis[edit]

Don't forget to add a reference citation for the synonymy! Stegana (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am more than happy to delete the pages. However, before I do so, I am not an expert so how come the combination was able to get published in a peer reviewed journal? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • If you look at the article history, you'll see that I had made the two articles (one for genus, one for species) into redirects to the taxa they are synonyms of - that is what I would consider the preferred approach, rather than deletion. It informs anyone looking here that the taxon is not valid, whereas deletion would be an invitation for a naive editor to simply re-create the articles. Editor Stegana reverted the edits, but at least flagged them with the "Dispute" header. I suppose the header is helpful, but the question of protocol remains; if scientific consensus exists, but is limited to ephemeral digital media (in this case, a long-running FaceBook thread) rather than a traditional print medium, MUST it be ignored by any and all Wikimedia resources? There are conflicting policies at work; treating it as a synonym violates requirements for reliable sources, but treating it as valid when community consensus is against it is a form of undue weighting for a minority opinion - also a policy violation. As for your specific question, the reality of the situation is that the senior author's reputation precedes him, so the reviewers and editors assumed he knew what a sclerogibbid was when he saw it. He had never seen a wingless pompilid before, and made a huge embarrassing error, placing it in the wrong superfamily based on superficial similarites. Since none of the reviewers were experts in the CORRECT superfamily, none of them realized the magnitude of the error. To use a somewhat poor analogy, it's like asking bird experts to peer review a paper wherein a platypus is proposed as a missing link in bird evolution. Dyanega (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
You make your points well. I have noted on WS in the past, that is peer review is not perfect and requires a degree of consensus post-publication. We have this problem with Anchusa s.l. and allied genera. It is clearly not monophyletic, but many authorities wish to see more data before dismantling the genus into segregates, which has been proposed. I assume the simple redirects are your preferred options not disputed or deleted? Would it be best to leave the data on the page or blank it prior to the redirect? I think you are correct, but I am somebody who would not be competent to peer review either a platypus or wingless pompilid. Will you do the honours? Andyboorman (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some nomenclatural questions[edit]

Hi Doug. I hope you're doing well.

I was hoping I could pick your brain regarding application of the ICZN to some cases.

  1. I find the code rather less than explicit in the validity of purely behavioral elements, or those not actually discriminating, for fulfilling the requirements of art. 12.1 or 13.1.1. This questions is all the more obvious to me as the botanical code is rather more explicit regarding this point.
    Evenhuis (2020) clearly presumes that such descriptors generate availability, treating single (Dutch) words like "night-fliers" and "flesh-eaters" as sufficient to do so on their own.
    his appears to potentially impact the correct place of publication of Sphaerosoma Samouelle, 1819 vs. Stephens, 1832
    Actually, the case of Lacpatica Bechyné & Bechyné, 1977 is probably a much better example. They state that their previous cjharacterization of the genus was unavailable for want of being discriminant enough. However, the code merely requires that purported characters be present, not that they be sufficient.
  2. How exactly is one to apply 67.8 to the case of a name being explicitly referred to as a "nom. nov.", but also in context clearly meant as a replacement name for an incorrect application of the replaced name?
    See for example the case of Tritomapara Alvarenga, 1970 as discussed by Skelley, 2020.
    In my case, this specifically affects the application of the thrips genus Frankliniella Karny, 1910. Karny clearly intends (p. 46, note) to replace his application of Amyot & Serville's name (he states he hadn't previously wanted to coin a new name for the circumscription he was using at the time, until shown that that name was a homonym), and the brief diagnostic description he makes is incompatible with his own earlier type designation for Physopus. If Skelley's interpretation is to be followed, Frankliniella must have the same type as Physopus, and a significant amount of thrips nomenclature is upended as Frankliniella (one of the largest thrips genera) falls to the synonymy of Thrips Linnaeus.
    I originally thought rules on expressly stated misidentifications were pertinent, but they are in fact only applicable to misidentification of a previously designated or included species, and irrelevant here.
  3. The replacement name Phenicothrips is currently in use to avoid quasi-homonymy of Phaenothrips Priesner and Phenothrips Ananthakrishnan (Mound & Hastepflug-Vesmanis, 2020). As I noted in private emails with Dr. Mound, art. 56.2 is quite explicit on this matter. However, the practical issues of both these names being valid in the same family (the same subfamily, even) are rather obvious.
    Do you think the Committee would be receptive to a request for suppression on this matter?

Thanks in advance. Circeus (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

(1) It is a double-edged sword that the Code is considered to accept any descriptive or diagnostic text as sufficient for very old names. It protects a very large number of very familiar names from being arbitrarily rendered unavailable, but it does also protect some names that really would be better off forgotten. The idea is that if this really is a problem, an application to the Commission can address any such problem.
(2) I need to look at this example in more detail before I can offer a clear opinion.
(3) The thrips names are not homonyms, and while it may be confusing, it is one of a very large number of similar cases, including one that User:Monster Iestyn just dealt with recently; the genera Pachyonychus and Pachyonychis, which are in the same tribe, both monotypic, and whose species have the same epithet. You can't find a worse example than that, and the Code allows it, and people have adapted to it. I would be very surprised for an application to suppress a pseudo-homonym to get enough votes to pass UNLESS it has not been in prevailing usage, and someone tried to resurrect it. Dyanega (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I typed, but forgot to post, the previous text yesterday. Having now reviewed the details of case #2, from everything I can see, Skelley's analyses are direct parallels to yours, and done correctly. In the case of Frankliniella, since it is explicitly stated to be a nomen novum, it cannot have a type species different from Physapus A & S, following strict application of Art. 67.8 (the Article even specifies "despite any statement to the contrary", so Karny's comments are rendered meaningless). To set aside the code-compliant type species and replace it with a type species that preserves the identity of the genus would very clearly require an application; specifically, to set aside all type designations of Amyot & Serville's genus prior to Karny, if I understand the situation correctly. A case such as this is likely to be approved, given the number of species and the amount of literature. It is also helpful, for your case #3, to see how Skelley addressed the problem with Eudaemonius/Eutriplax. This is a direct parallel to the Phenicothrips - Phaenothrips - Phenothrips problem. Under Art. 23.9.1 the name Phenicothrips cannot be used unless two conditions are met: (1) the name it replaces has not been used as valid at any time after 1899, and (2) Phenicothrips must appear in at least 25 publications (in the sense of Article 8) in the last 50 years. Otherwise, the senior name should be restored, and only an application to the Commission under 23.9.3 could preserve Phenicothrips as valid. Since Phaenothrips was used as valid between 1968 and 1995, these conditions are clearly not met, and I strongly suspect the Commission would not approve such an application; the 8 described species are obscure and lack a substantial literature, so restoring Phaenothrips would create little disruption. I hope this is helpful. Dyanega (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your thoughtful answers. They were very helpful. I had expected issues to arise more easily in Diptera (because of variants like -myia/-mya/-mya/-mia/-myas), but the Paronychis/-us pair is also very good.
In the end I'm not even sure what characters can be assumed to be derived at all from Samouelle, 1819 (which is essentially a tabular data of seasonal occurrences) so I will follow the mostly accepted current practice and probably treat it as a nomen nudum in IRMNG. Circeus (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't aware that the details in the Samouelle case were something out of the ordinary. Can you provide a link? A quick scan of resources suggests that some of Samouelle's names are treated as available and valid, and if there is a need to address the WORK in which the names are published, as a whole, this might need to be brought before the Commission. It does not make sense that some of the names would be available and others not, assuming they were all proposed in the same way. Certain works, like Voet's and Dejean's, have been treated inconsistently in the past, and arriving at a firm consensus takes time, but is essential - and it sounds like Samouelle may fall into that same category. Dyanega (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found the work online. I see that most of the names that appear in the series of tabular entries are described or discussed elsewhere in the text, but not all of them. The entry for Sphaerosoma quercus is one that has no corresponding text entry. Personally, I would say that this fails to satisfy the criteria of Article 12, and almost literally violates Art. 12.3 - but someone willing to argue over the technicalities could potentially argue that "locality" and "host" are excluded categories under 12.3, but neither is literally the same as "habitat". I would consider that a meaningless quibble, but have passed this example along to the other Commissioners to see if there is a consensus view regarding whether this name and others like it are nomina nuda after all, as I would conclude. Mine is just one opinion, though, so it will be interesting to see if I get pushback from some of the more "literalist" Commissioners. Keep checking back here for updates. Dyanega (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

One more thing about the timeline here - when you say "vs. Stephens, 1832" are you referring to a usage by Stephens of the name Sphaerosoma or are you referring to the publication describing the genus Alexia (which appears to be cited as 1833)? It could make a huge difference, as this evidently could make Sphaerosoma go away entirely, in which case the name of the type genus of the family Alexiidae would actually be Alexia, rather than perpetuating the mismatch. That would mess up a bunch of species names, but resolve one confusing issue. Dyanega (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
That would be the former, an Errata for the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera available online cites it as "Stephens, 1832: 391", which would be this page from Illustrations of British entomology, Mandibulata, volume 4. Alexia meanwhile as far as I'm aware comes from The nomenclature of British insects, second edition, page 23, but I'm basing that on the online Alexiidae world checklist from 2008 (as well as IRMNG which got its information from Nomenclator Zoologicus). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for providing the clarification, Iestyn, and to you Doug, for taking extra time to have a glance at Samouelle. I didn't look at any other part of the work, so I wasn't aware there were available names elsewhere in it. Circeus (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Having now seen the Errata in question, someone - don't know who, since the errata are anonymous - decided that Samouelle's Sphaerosoma quercus and Stephens' Sphaerosoma quercus are not the same beetle. The errata specifically state that Samouelle's taxon has the valid name piliferum (Muller, 1821), while Stephens' taxon is a junior synonym of pilosum (Panzer, 1793). I can summarize it only this way: whoever made that call, it seems insupportable to treat either quercus name so definitively, given that neither Samouelle nor Stephens provided any specimens. In the absence of type specimens, making synonymies is not really practical, and highly questionable. That being said, it seems that there ARE two taxa, and since neither of them use quercus as a valid name, it pretty much doesn't matter if the person who made that decision is right or wrong; both of those names predate 1832. What this does mean is that the entries in Wikipedia and Wikispecies need to reflect this decision. You'll note that I've already updated the WP article (at Alexiidae) to reflect it, and now I'll make sure that Wikispecies parallels it. Dyanega (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Digging a bit more, it might not have been a new synonymy after all, I just found "quercus Steph." listed as a synonym of piliferum in page 5-6 of Csiki's 1910 Endomychidae volume in Coleopterorum Catalogus. Not sure yet if it might have been synonymized even earlier than that, but it is possible. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's the wrong synonymy; quercus Stephens is not a synonym of piliferum, it's a synonym of pilosum. Dyanega (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

And of course we're presuming here that Csiki considers quercus Samouelle and quercus Stephens as separate taxon (he might well assume that Stephens' name is the only valid one, since he doesn't seem to have an entry for Samouelle's). What a mess. I'm glad I stick mostly to genus-level, that's trouble enough as is. Circeus (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Definitely a mess, but - thankfully - someone else has taken the responsibility for this decision, for good or for ill. We just need to cite it, and do so consistently (and keep well-intentioned editors from reverting things). BTW, two other Commissioners have weighed in on the matter of Samouelle's tabular names, and agree that any name ONLY in the tables, and not in the text, is unavailable under Article 12. They are easy enough to spot because if they appear in the text, Samouelle cites the page in the table, while names like quercus have a blank spot and no page cite. Dyanega (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
...I think I must have been half-asleep if I didn't notice that I was going for the wrong synonymy, my mistake. Thanks for clearing up the matter of those table-only names though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

An update[edit]

Hey, Doug! I was lucky enough to stumble across Art. 70.3 (which I had completely forgotten about). And as it happens, it is just the thing to fix the Frankliniella situation without a recourse to the Committee! If you're curious, the detailed explanation is in my Sandbox. Circeus (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

That was a detail omitted in the earlier communications - you say "In both publications, Karny (1907, 1910) explicitly mentions that he is following Uzel's concepts. As noted by Hood (1914b), Uzel's concept of T. vulgatissimus actually corresponds to Thrips intonsa Trybom, 1895". If this is correct, then Art. 70.3 would apply but please do note that you are invoking 70.3.2, which requires a formal publication somewhere that fulfills these criteria: "the author must refer to this Article and cite together both the name previously cited as type species and the name of the species selected." Until such a note is published, in a Code-compliant manner, the matter is not formally resolved. You might submit a brief note to the BZN, that's a good place for such things. Dyanega (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
The part about Following Uzel's concepts wasn't so much an omitted detail as I hadn't seen the bits of text that mentioned it and it only registered once I read through the explanatory material by Hood (1914). I do have a mention of article 70.3.2, but I just noticed I refer to it as being done "under art. 70.3" so I'll go fix that right up. Circeus (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another interpretive question[edit]

Hi again Doug,

While examining your and Iestyn's conversation on Ochralea, I noticed something that the code provides very little help about. It's generally accepted that a misapplication of a name is not available of its own right. How should that be handled when the misapplied name was generally assumed to be unavailable at the time of its "redescription", and so the redescribing author intends to describe a new genus? Is the junior name to be treated as a misapplication or as a junior homonym?

In Ochralea's case, this is very important to determine to avoid the very pit-trap you and I discussed above. If Clarke's name is to be treated as a misapplication (Clarke wrote: "The genus Ochralea, proposed by Chevrolat, appears to be a very natural one, and of much more easy definition than the species themselves that compose it.", compare also the treatment of "Ozomena Harold" [nec Chevrolat] in Lee & Bezděk, 2019), then it cannot, being unavailable, be directly replaced under article 60. Doing so would instead create an unnecessary replacement name of Ochralea Chevrolat. Circeus (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not able to think, offhand, of any case where an erroneous redescription was treated as anything other than a junior homonym of the thing it redescribed. Clark (or is it actually Clarke?) certainly provided a description, and a type species, but just because that type species was incompatible with the original (therefore, not the same as Chevrolat's genus) doesn't put it into any special category of cases. Had it not been a homonym, it would definitely have been available in its own right. The situations where a misapplication is not treated as available is when it did not otherwise fulfill the conditions for availability. Clark's certainly did. So long as Chevrolat's is an available name, Clark's cannot be. All that the "misapplication" here means in this case is that the Clark's name is not a synonym of Chevrolat's.
The situation with Ozomena is more complicated, because there are three publications of the name; the original in 1836/7 was unavailable, the second one in 1845 was available, and the third one in 1847 presumably would have been available had it not been a homonym, even though it lacked any available included species (that does not, in and of itself, render a pre-1931 genus-rank name unavailable). I do not agree with Lee & Bezděk's interpretation of the 1847 Ozomena as a simple misapplication, therefore; since it was evidently given a description, then even with no included species, it was an independent establishment of a genus-rank taxon, though permanently unavailable. I suspect that they were confused by the phrasing of Art. 12.1, which requires that a new name is "accompanied by a description or definition of the taxon it denotes, or by an indication". That clause says "OR by an indication", and not "AND by an indication". A genus-rank name that is published with no available species names would only be unavailable if it had no description or definition. That is not the case for either Clark's use of Ochralea or (I assume) Chevrolat's 1847 use of Ozomena. In other words, Lee & Bezděk did correctly list Harold's use of Ozomena as a misapplication (since they referred to the 1845 Ozomena, which is not the same as Theopea), but they were mistaken in NOT listing Ozomena Chevrolat 1847 as a senior synonym of Theopea Baly 1864, but unavailable. The reasoning for it a synonym of Theopea is the exact same as the reasoning that dimidiaticornis and apiata are synonyms of Theopea impressa!! I would need to see the Chevrolat 1847 work to be positive about this, but as far as I am aware that was a Code-compliant description, and its omission from this analysis is a mistake. Dyanega (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ozomena Chevrolat, 1847 is found in page 377 of Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle volume 9. There doesn't appear to be an actual description here, only its taxonomy, a mention of its adoption by Dejean in his catalogue, and the use of a nomen nudum Dejean catalogue species as its type. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
If I may play devil's advocate, it seems equally legitimate to argue that Clarke (which, again, is explicitly referring to a published name) is not describing a new genus but making an unnecessary type designation.
I'll cop to the fact that I just thoroughly dislike isonyms (i.e. names that are juniors synonyms and simultaneously homonyms of that senior synonym) in general and that colors my analysis of the situation. Circeus (talk)
Well, two things: (1) seeing Chevrolat 1847, that is very definitely NOT a Code-compliant description, but would indeed count as a misapplication. In that case, while it would not be potentially available, I still think it should have been listed in the synonymy of Theopea. (2) The intention to describe as new (or not) is generally irrelevant under the Code, and even if Clarke had no intention of describing it as new, he did provide a description, and included available species. It just happens not to be an isonym. While I also detest isonyms, they are a fact of life. It was especially common in a number of Westwood/Hope names, thanks to the way the Royal Entomological Society would publish meeting minutes and papers, and publish them more than once. It still happens, too: a colleague who submitted a manuscript describing a new genus and species to three different journals, and all three published it, so there were two homonyms and two objective synonyms created. Dyanega (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
By the way, it definitely is "Clark" and not "Clarke", specifically it was Hamlet Clark who wrote the article. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

[undent] Oh dear. I'm afraid I only further muddled the conversation. In my first response above, I was discussing only the Ochralea situation. So, if you'll allow to reiterate, there seems to be two possible interpretations of the Code in that case:

A) The name Ochralea Clark, 1865 has a description and even a type, thus it is available and a distinct name from Chevrolat's.
B) Because Clarke refers explicitly to using Ochralea Chevrolat, 1836, an available name, "Ochralea Clark" is not new in the first place and does not in fact become available. Whether or not Clarke considers that name available being irrelevant. The presence of a type designation is equally irrelevant because that species is then not eligible in the first place (art. 69.2).

In the first case, Ochralea Clark is a junior homonym that can be replaced through article 60 of the code. In the second case, replacing "Ochralea" Clark would either create an unavailable name or merely create an unnecessary replacement for Ochralea Chevrolat (depending on how generous one's interpretation of the code is). Instead a wholly new genus must be published. Circeus (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The first scenario is the one that follows the Code, as I see it. It is irrelevant that Clark attributed the name to Chevrolat, because he provided a Code-compliant description of his own, including a type designation. It is, in Code parlance, "a different nominal taxon", despite having the same name. Re-reading what I wrote, I suppose there is a certain asymmetry to my comments that could be confusing. While I said that the designation of a different type doesn't put Clark's name into a special category, it IS, however, a necessary condition for his name to be treated as an independent and potentially available nomenclatural act IF Chevrolat's name was available. That is, if he had simply published the description and not designated a type species, then there would be no evidence that it referred to a different nominal taxon, and so long as Chevrolat's name was available, then (and ONLY then) Clark's publication would not be treated as an independent nomenclatural act. However, if Chevrolat's name was NOT available, then Clark's publication WOULD have made it independently available, because even though it was the same nominal taxon, Clark would then be the first person to make a name for that taxon available. That's why scenario B would not apply; the presence of a type designation IS relevant, because it is the thing that explicitly prevents us from treating Clark's name as a simple citation of Chevrolat's. Again, this is how I personally see the Code applying to cases like this, where one name was used to refer to two different taxa. I can certainly see how other people might automatically want to assume that attributing a name to someone else constitutes an abdication of authorship, but there are far too many obvious parallel cases where this is not how people treat the second name (i.e., they assign authorship to the second author anyway), so it's not clear to me that the alternative interpretation is universally adopted. The way I conceptualize it is that homonymy covers a spectrum of cases, from completely unrelated taxa to identical taxa. It's just that we don't want or need to invoke homonymy when we know the taxa involved are identical; for example, the situation I described above, of someone publishing the same exact paper three times, it isn't relevant that the second and third publications created homonyms, because the names were already unavailable, as objective synonyms - you wouldn't CITE them in a catalog as homonyms. We ignore cases where the taxa referred to are identical, but the minute they can be shown to be different, then I'd argue that we need to treat them as homonyms. If there are those who would argue a different interpretation, it might be a genuine controversy, and need clarification in the Code. I may consult the other Commissioners on this, to see if they have thoughts worth sharing. Dyanega (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
The first feedback I've gotten posits a different set of criteria than I was assuming, but neither view is actually explicit in the Code. That is, I was operating under the assumption that a "redescription" was a new nomenclatural act if it differed in substance from the original, but not if it was the same. The one response I got says, instead, that a "redescription" is a new nomenclatural act if the original name is unavailable, but not if the original name is available. In other words, I was assuming that the criterion involved was linked to an intrinsic property of the redescription itself; their alternative view is that the criterion is linked instead to EXTRINSIC factors. Under this view, if Ochralea Chevrolat is available, then Ochralea Clark effectively ceases to exist; it is neither a homonym nor a synonym - it is nomenclaturally nothing. It is "Ochralea sensu Clark", and there is nothing to replace. The taxon needs a name either way, but to me it means replacing a homonym, to them it requires an entirely new taxon description. Where they and I do agree is that the Code needs to have some text added - even if only in the Glossary - to explain when a "redescription" is or is not available. Presently the Code has no Glossary entry defining either "redescription" or "subsequent description", and that is an oversight, as you originally noted. Looking at examples in the literature, I think it may be that the unwritten rule here, as practiced, does generally work the way they say it does, and not the way I assumed, so it looks like I may be changing my opinion on this case. In which case, I owe both of you an apology. Dyanega (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've noticed a number of similar examples of "Ochralea [sensu] Clark"-type names in leaf beetle literature, for the large part they seem to be treated as just junior homonyms as far as I can tell (at least, when they're actually noticed, unlike Ochralea [sensu] Clark itself). It'd be good to have the Code clarify when or when such redescriptions do or don't count as available names, though I do wonder what the full implications of such changes will be. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps I need to give an example: Trichochrysea for instance has not just one but two Chevrolat name redescriptions as its synonyms (Bromius Baly, 1865 and Heteraspis Chapuis, 1874, to be clear), but in the CPC vol. 6 they are treated as junior homonyms (indicated by "[HN]") of the Chevrolat names. I take it that really these should both be sensu names in actual fact? (It should cause no real problems in this instance at least, if they were) Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Trichochrysea case is evidently quite different; I assume (given that they are not presently synonyms) that neither Bromius Baly nor Heteraspis Chapuis were redescriptions of Chevrolat's taxa by those names, and assume they were not attributed to Chevrolat (that is, they were not putative synonyms). Clark, however, explicitly listed Chevrolat as the author of Ochralea, and the name putatively referred to the same taxon. That makes all the difference; the idea circulating among the Commission presently centers around defining a "redescription" and one of the central criteria is whether the redescription is attributed to the original author, using the same name - the other criterion, of course, being that the original name must be available (if it is unavailable, then the second author is not considered to have published a redescription, but instead has published a new name). Dyanega (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well okay then, fair enough, neither of them are putatively referring to the same taxon as Chevrolat's now. (This wasn't such a good example in hindsight, a lot of mistaken identities are involved and the mixup was already sorted over a hundred years ago for the most part. It's all very messy.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm not ruling out that there could be incorrectly "resolved" issues; the one thing that would need to be checked is if either Baly or Chapuis attributed the names to Chevrolat. If not, then they're independently available names. Dyanega (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I thought you'd checked the original pages yourself already, they are here and here. Both of them cite the name in Chevrolat's catalogue as you can see. It gets messy because there are actually multiple other redescriptions involved in both names, and it's somewhat a nomenclature version of a tangled web (I was almost going to write all the details of it here but it might be too much, and would go on too much of a tangent away from this discussion). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I am clearly not as adept as others at tracking down original literature in BHL. If Chevrolat's names are available, and not nomina nuda then according to the as-yet-unpublished criteria the Commission is likely to approve, these names are effectively the same as Clark's - a redescription despite offering a different definition, and not to be treated as either synonyms or homonyms. It certainly is true that Baly was VERY explicit in stating that Chevrolat's Bromius was unavailable, but if he was wrong, then neither he nor Redtenbacher were providing Code-compliant new descriptions, even if taxonomists treated them as such until recently. That clarification of the Code will certainly have some impact on a number of cases involving Dejean, Voet, Panzer, and others. Dyanega (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Bromius Chevrolat is indeed considered available now, so it sound like Baly's is not then. Oddly enough, I checked Redtenbacher's Bromius earlier, and it doesn't actually cite Chevrolat (but he doesn't seem to cite the authors of any other genus, quick glancing elsewhere in the work). Yet it is considered the same as Bromius Chevrolat anyway as far as I can tell. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I looked at Chevrolat's Bromius and Heteraspis. I can see why these might have been treated as nomina nuda prior to the advent of the Code, but it looks to me that they fulfill the criteria of Art. 12.2.5 - that is, any genus name in Chevrolat's lists that contains an available species name (as these do) is thereby an available genus name. It's a marginal level of Code-compliance, but it does work fairly well for telling which names are which. That being said, it seems that people have only recently taken to careful scrutiny of the names in Chevrolat, and I'm not sure they have been consistently treated. Dyanega (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Another similar case: Odontionopa Erichson, 1842 is treated as a homonym of Odontionopa Chevrolat, 1836, but there is no evidence that it should be considered anything other than a subsequent use of Chevrolat's name. Reid "replaced" it in 1993, but I don't think it really qualifies as a replacement name for Erichson's name. Eboo is probably still available, but it might not have been if it had been published after 1999, given that it was proposed under false pretenses. Dyanega (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've had time to look carefully at the paper proposing Eboo; it contains a diagnosis for the genus, and it does contain a type species designation, which is valid despite having been applied to "Odontionopa Erichson", a non-existent taxon. It therefore fulfills the technical requirements for availability, despite the error. It is, however, NOT a replacement name, because the name it was intended to replace was unavailable, and not (technically) a homonym. I'm going to edit the Eboo entry here accordingly. Dyanega (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those are going to be awfully long notes to apply to all the relevant pages... since we're here, I can think of several other genera with these kinds of "sensu" names as synonyms, e.g. Eubrachis Baly for Macrocoma, Eubrachis Burgeon for Tanybria, Spintherophyta Lefèvre for Metaparia, Colaspis Bechyné for Metaxyonycha (due to Bechyné using the wrong type species designation for Colaspis). (There was also a misapplication of Lycaste Gistel, 1848 but in that case a new genus Eupetale was correctly published with a diagnosis and type species, rather than calling it a replacement name, I just added the "sensu" name for convenience) And that's just genera in one subfamily, I've honestly not been following them for the other ones in the leaf beetles, let alone in other families (though maybe my IRMNG + Dejean user subpage has revealed many more in hiding that I've already forgotten about). Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I didn't expect it to be easy. But sometimes intellectual honesty has its price. Until and unless the people producing catalogues solicit feedback from people conversant in the Code and who have no vested interest, Wikispecies is about the only venue where comments regarding Code-compliance can be made visible. So far, I've only changed Eboo and Trichochrysea, as those are ones I've seen all the relevant literature for, and can be confident in the conclusions. Those two might offer a template for similar notes elsewhere. When I have a chance, I'll try to review the others you've listed. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

A summary of the interpretation[edit]

Trying to comb through all this and reading the discussion at Eboo, I'd like to try for a short summary of the relevant interactions because I need to make a case regarding this to a third party.

  • There is no rule in the Code that would make a name stated as a substitute name automatically unavailable due to lack of an available replacement.
  • Therefore, Eboo is available despite being nominally a replacement name for Odontionopa Erichson, an unavailable name, because it otherwise satisfy all the appropriate requirements of a new taxon at the time of its publication.
  • Note however that Article 16.1 implies that after 1999 incorrect explicit statement of intent would render the name either unavailable or an objective synonym of Odontionopa Chevrolat.
    • If this is not the case, a new provision 16.1.1 worded as an equivalent of ICBN art. 6.14 would help clarify that while the omission of explicit intent renders the name unavailable, an explicit, but erroneous intent does not necessarily do so providing actual intent can be unambiguously determined.
  • Otherwise, publication of a replacement name explicitly for a misinterpreted version of a name with no other validating indications (i.e. nothing that would satisfy article 12.2 or 13.1.2) must be taken as an objective synonym of the actually available name.
    • The only provision that can possibly breaks the tie between unavailability versus objective synonymy is Art 51.1 (compare art. 67.7 which makes an explicit statement to that effect regarding designation of type species).
  • A good example of such a case may be the following statement in Bedel, 1906, a short note that includes no bibliographic references of any sort:
    Gen. Heliopates || Muls., 1854 (Heliophilus || Steph., 1832), = Heliocaës, nom. noy. (1906).

Honestly, I kinda still want to interpret Eboo as an unnecessary replacement name for Odontionopa Chevrolat, because this distinction seems too fine to make and I suspect not that many name would be salvaged by it. Circeus (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are very few Articles in the ICZN where the deciding factor is author intent. In a case like this, 16.1 certainly would not and could not come into play. If an author published a paper today that gave a new genus name and said in the text "nom. nov." and then gave a description of that genus and cited an available type species, it would be available even if it later turned out that it was not an actual replacement name, so long as that type species did not match the type species of any other available genus name. After all, rejecting such a name once people had started to use it would not help stability of nomenclature; it could be anywhere from months to decades before someone realized the name being replaced was not eligible for replacement. By overlooking an erroneous statement of intent, there is less risk that a name people had adopted would suddenly be rendered unavailable on a technicality. Does that help make the situation seem more tolerable? As for being an objective synonym, this is certainly possible if there is no explicit statement as to a type species OR if their choice of type species is identical to the original genus, but if two names involve different type species, then there is nothing "automatic" that would make them objective synonyms. Dyanega (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
But author intent is factored in people's actual interpretation of the code to individual cases all the time. Is a random new species that uses a genus name without further notice it a separate homonym? What about the same work publisghed or reported several times with the same assertions of new taxa? Under the code, which has no provisions to specifically handle isonyms, these are all independently available homonyms, but literally no ones actually applies the code this way.
All those things basically depends on consensus and later author can and occasionally will freely disregard that consensus either to apply or openly disregard author intent. Sometimes, a given nomen may be considered available or not entirely depending on the taxa the author discussing studies:
  • Acidia Illiger is treated as available but invalid by Coleopterists and as unavailable by Dipterists (it treates Acidia Robineau-Desvoidy) and the argument is entirely centered around author intent.
  • Hymenopterists have revived Dinax Konow, 1897, a later homonym of Dinax Gistel, based on the argument that Gistel's misspelling of the name being replaced vitiates the availability of the name. Obviously if one considers Gistel's name available (as Bouchard et al. do), that is because one considers that author intent ought to bear on the issue.
And of course every single time I ask about an author that wanted to make available a name that was in fact already available (e.g. Lychnuris Olivier, 1911, Ochralea Clark, Spintherophyta Lefèvre, 1875...) and essentially ended up creating a different name while indubitably asserting that he was using an existing name, that is in fact a question about the effect of author intent on availability!
Now I don't intend to be contrary, I swear. This is more a complain that the code provides so little explicit guidance in handling these corners cases. What you'd think would be an easy case under the code because it is a regular occurence (an author attempts to replace a name that is in fact a misinterpreted name) is at best difficult to tease out of what is actually in the code and at worst left wholly unresolved by the actual provisions of the code (at least the ICBN does explicitly handle such cases through e.g. provisions of art. 41, 47 and 48). Circeus (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
While I follow most of what you're saying, I can point out a few things:
(1) when you say "literally no ones actually applies the code this way" that isn't true. There are cataloguers, myself included, that cite names appearing in re-publications of works as homonyms IF the work says the name is new. The Code accepts all works at face value, objectively. If a work says a name is new, then the Code tells us how to treat it. You don't get to pretend that it didn't happen. Yes, there are people who DO ignore re-publications, some of them are even ICZN Commissioners, but that approach isn't unanimously accepted.
(2) I am among the Commissioners who place primacy of interpretation on whatever outcome favors stability. If no one has used Acidia Illiger as a valid name, then that is a very different situation from cases like Lychnuris, Ochralea, or Spintherophyta, where a name was in widespread use before anyone caught on to something fishy behind it. It is a very bad thing for stability to retroactively take a name treated as available AND IN USE and suddenly claim it is unavailable. If one is compelled to interpret the Code in such a situation, then if there is a difference in interpretation possible, then the preferred interpretation is the one that treats the previously available name as available.
(3)I need to get more details about the Dinax situation (which I had not heard of) to know how to interpret that case. Dyanega (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Re: isonyms, I apologize for being presumptuous. I've been handling a lot of names including various large catalogues in the last two years, and I don't think I've seen any instance where pure isonyms were actually handled other than as chresonyms (if mentioned at all!). This even from authors who are otherwise very thorough about code adherence (such as Patrice Bouchard, who has pointed out to me a few tripwire provisionss I had been mostly unaware of). For all his quirks and insistence on replacing the entire vocabulary of nomenclature, Alain Dubois generally is in favor of strict code adherence, yet even he (2012:66-67) wholly recognize that this approach to isonyms ("Isomonyms" in his nomenclature) is both the most widespread by far and also the more practical.
Re: Misinterpred names treated as available: the key detail is that whether or not you consider such a name available in its own right is irrelevant to its validity. If available, they are still by nature permanently invalid homonyms. Indeed if they weren't, I wouldn't need to ask about it. The issue really is that the correct modality of replacing these names (if replacement is desirable) depends on their availability: only if they are, in fact, available can they be replaced through art. 60 (something which I believe is dubious as all three cases above are plainly attempts to redefine available names in violation of article 67.2) . Otherwise the intended substitute must be published as new taxon.
Aside from my personal need for exactitude, I do wish to handle these name correctly, even though normal users may not care much (out of the four names mentioned above, only Ochralea is in use). That is, day-to-day workers and users of name don't have to worry on the exact status of an invalid name (but then you get stuff like Acidia and Dinax...). I, however, am working on a database and have to explicitly state where each invalid name in IRMNG falls and why.
Re: Dinax The revival was effected by Blank et al., 2009:20-21. However, their argument doesn't go any farther than my description of it:
Checking Dejean's several editions of beetle catalogs and other sources such as the Nomenclator Zoologicus it becomes clear that Dejean never described a genus with the name Poelilesthus. Therefore, Dinax Gistel, 1848, is considered to be a nomen nudum associated with beetles. Dejean (1821) described Paecilesthus, later (Dejean 1834) he changed it into Poecilesthus. The association of Dinax Gistel with "Poecilesthus Agassiz 1845" (as given in the Nomenclator Zoologicus) is not justified based on the scanty information presented by Gistel. Agassiz (1845: 132) only cites "Poecilesthus Dejean 1833".
Circeus (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Take this as you will, but I ran the Dinax case past the other Commissioners, and they universally agreed that it is a permanently unavailable junior homonym, so Blank et al. were unjustified in resurrecting it, because the name cannot be used under the ICZN. This is just one example of how actions by taxonomists taken without Commission consultation or petition can deviate from accepted interpretation and application of the Code. While it is true that there is rarely unanimity on the Commission (isonyms being a good example), the point remains that in cases that are controversial, it is still better to interact with the Commission - either formally or informally - before publishing something. That Commission rulings are always independent of one another instead of being based on precedent is, in this general scenario, actually a GOOD thing because all the little nuances of each individual case can and do get taken into consideration. Bringing a case to the Commission, if it is resolved in one's favor, gives one the weight of authority and makes it very difficult for anyone to undo your work down the road. Otherwise, we have a mess, like now stands to ensue regarding Dinax, because it's going to piss a lot of people off if and when someone pushes the issue. Dyanega (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am 100% in agreement with you regarding cases being nonbinding on each others (which is why I have not sought to find parallel examples in decisions, which would be very difficult to do anyway). This is also mostly the case with botany (ICBN usually tries to stay consistent in ruling on whether names can be confused or not, but this is an area that ICZN does not have to be concerned with). Circeus (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

a new question[edit]

Hello yet again, Doug

This one is probably considered a conventional interpretation in Zoology, but since I came into nomenclature from the ICBN where this would explicitly make the name unavailable, I wanted to make sure:

  • Is a name published after 1931 that had two species explicitly designated as type available?

i.e. is the remedy a First Reviser action under art 24. or is a de novo publication publication necessary? I have not been able to consult the original publication in this case, so for context here's the entry and reference from Bouchard et al.:

Afronosis G.S. Medvedev, 1995a: 849, 859 [F]. Type species: Stenosis ciliaris Gebien, 1920, by original designation. Status: valid subgenus of Stenosis Herbst, 1799 in Pimeliinae: Stenosini: Stenosina. Note: Stenosis leontjevi G.S. Medvedev, 1995 was listed as a second type species of this genus in the original publication (G.S. Medvedev, 1995: 859); we act as First Revisers and select Stenosis ciliaris Gebien, 1920 as the type species for Afronosis G.S. Medvedev, 1995.
  • Medvedev GS (1995a) Новые данные по систематике жуков-чернотелок трибы Stenosini (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) [New data on systematics of tenebrionid beetles of the tribe Stenosini (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae)]. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 73[1994]: 844–867. [English translation in Entomological Review 75: 101–124]

Thanks in advance. Circeus (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Art. 24.2.2 in particular establishes that competing nomenclatural acts with a simultaneous time element can have their precedence arbitrarily decided by a first reviser. Designation of a type species is one such act that can, albeit very rarely, have competing candidates, as in this case. I find it interesting that the ICBN would not allow the genus name to be available in such a case; the ICZN has always allowed this, even after the 1930 cutoff (the year after which a genus name MUST have a type species fixed in the OD). Dyanega (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for clarifying that.
It appears that the ICBN is nowhere as explicit as I remembered. I Basically got slightly confused by art 36.3. Article 40.3 states that typification of a genus is effect by reference to a single species. I'll admit I can't locate a good example of post-1958 of syntypes that are different gathering as opposed to different specimens forming a gathering that could serve as a test case. Cases of suprageneric taxa with designated syntypes appear even more obscure in botany. Article 40 ex.3 and 33 ex. 3 come close though. Circeus (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Guess who...[edit]

has stumbled across another interesting situation? Well, not me, technically, but I'm the one bringing it to you.

This one put us in territory similar to Frankliniella from a while ago, but here Lefèvre seems to explicitly borrow the name only from Dejean. for his Spintherophyta. In botany, this would be available as it clearly would fall under ICBN art. 48.1, but I and Iestyn suspect this probably is a misapplication under a strict application of the code.

There is no stake either way as Spintherophyta lefevre and its replacement name are already junior synonyms. This really just affect the availability of Spintherophyta Lefèvre and where they would fall into synonymy. Circeus (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This looks like the same situation as with some of the previous genera, where a subsequent author used a Dejean/Chevrolat name in a way that did not align wit its original usage. I this case, Spintherophyta Dejean is clearly an available name. That means that "Spintherophyta Lefevre" doesn't exist as an independent entity; it is not an available name, and does not enter into homonymy. If someone replaced it, then that replacement name has to be examined for potential availability. Dyanega (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thought as much. In any case, Spintherophyta sensu Lefèvre, 1875 (and its "replacement" name Phytospinthera Monrós & Bechyné, 1956) have been treated as synonyms of Metaparia Crotch, 1873 since 1996 anyway (as I briefly alluded to in last month's discussion), removing the problem altogether hopefully I assume. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

On the Berthold vs. Latreille situation[edit]

Iestyn has pointed to me that you and I seem to be on opposite sides of the debate regarding who the names Oedionych(i/u)s, Longitarsus and Psylliodes should be attributed to.

I consider that Berthold makes fairly clear reference to unavailable names in Illiger 1807. Indeed, most seem to agree the reference is fairly clear, because if that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be anything to disagree about in the first place.

In my opinion, it comes down to how one interprets the application of art. 12.2.1 to this particular situation. Generally, the ICZN is pretty loose with what counts as a "bibliographic citation". Indeed, in some cases, a name is considered to be cited even though it was done with a wholly incorrect citation (cf. Bousquet & Bouchard, 2013: both species included under Hybalus Dejean are cited with incorrect author, yet the name is still considered available). Other authors have argued for similarly loose or even looser application of article 12.2.1 (e.g. Koerber, 2019, Bank, 2011, Penhallurick & Fishpool, 2014...).

Note that I'm not arguing that Illiger's names are available, but rather that his published-under-the-code descriptions being fairly clearly referenced by Berthold are sufficient to make the names by the latter author available. Indeed the availability of Illiger's names is clearly irrelevant given that art. 12.2.1 itself explicitly allows description that appeared in pre-1758, non binomial and suppressed works.

Am I overlooking something here?

I suspect a request for suppressing Haltitarsus (vs. Dibolia) and (possibly) Oedionychus would be the only way to definitely resolve the entire debate (similar to our Kyphocarpha debate from a while ago, which proposal is still pending). Either such a proposal is rejected by the commission as unnecessary (due to Berthold's name being unavailable), or it is resolved in either direction, implicitly acknowledging the names as available. Circeus (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's been a little while since I've looked at any of the names involved here insofar as how to treat Berthold's names in particular. All I see in my personal files is "Nom. Nud." next to the Berthold names, and there are other ways besides the absence of an indication (i.e., a violation of Art. 12.2) for a name to be a nomen nudum under Articles 11 + 12. My notes could well be inaccurate, as they are borrowed from external sources, and I have no guarantee that whoever decided these were nomina nuda was technically correct. The obvious thing necessary is to check Berthold's work against the criteria in Article 11.4 through 11.8 - if none of those are violated, and Berthold provided a bibliographic reference to Illiger, then Berthold's names would be available. The matter of what constitutes a "bibliographic reference" is certainly central to the matter; it is defined as "a published citation referring to a publication". This is important here, because the example of Hybalus you give above is not a citation, it is an attribution, and it falls under Art. 12.2.5, and has nothing to do with 12.2.1 (specifically, Dejean's name Hybalus is available not because it provides a citation, but rather because it includes "one or more available specific names" - the fact that the authorship attributions of those available names is wrong is irrelevant, because the authorship is not technically part of a specific name). If the only "citation" of Illiger is attribution of the genus name to Illiger, then that doesn't satisfy 12.2.1 at all. My understanding is that Illiger's publication itself would need to be referenced in the form of a citation (Author, year, title/source). If it is, then you're right, and they're not nomina nuda. You don't link Berthold's work above, however, and that is essential to make an assessment. Dyanega (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Looking more broadly at all of the entries in my database, Berthold 1827 seems to be a mixture of both available names and nomina nuda, so I would expect there must be something that differs between names in one category versus the other. The names Leptocorixa, Ancyloscelis, Melissodes, Melitoma, Longitarsus, and Oedionychus are examples of names treated as unavailable, despite pre-dating the presently accepted authors. Podisma, Ancylorhynchus, Anacolus, Anisoscelis, Gonocerus, Syromastus, Hemirhipus, Nematodes, Hydrochara, Mycetochara, Mystacides, Lithurgus, Amphimallon, Trichopoda, and Prostenus are all treated as both available and valid. It would be interesting to know what differs between these sets of names. Dyanega (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Zoraptera Caudell, 1923[edit]

Hi, I need help clarifying whether a name counts as an incorrect spelling, emendation or something else in the ICZN code. This is in relation to the genus Zorotypus Silvestri, 1913.

In a article by A. N. Caudell in 1923, the name "Zoraptera" is used in place of Zorotypus by mistake when he described a new species (Zorotypus manni, now known as Centrozoros manni): [1] Zoraptera is actually the name of the order, and Zorotypus was at the time the only genus in the order. He corrected this in a later issue in the same volume ([2]), though it was clearly an error and given the order and genus aren't far off in spelling I can see how the slipup might have happened.

Does this erroneous use of "Zoraptera" as a genus name in this case count as an incorrect spelling or emendation of Zorotypus, or something else? I've been trying to check the ICZN for answers here, for instance Article 33, but I'm still not quite sure what applies here. The trouble is that it does not seem to me to be an "incorrect spelling" of Zorotypus by the usual meaning of the term, nor is it an intentional change in the spelling of the genus. Or does Art 33.5 apply and it counts as an incorrect spelling anyway? Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is definitely an extreme case, but it would have to be interpreted as an incorrect subsequent spelling of Zorotypus under the Code, and cited as "Zoraptera [sic] manni"when giving the original combination. I'm aware of a few cases that are almost as bad, like writing "bilineatus" instead of "bifasciatus", but those are not errors in the original descriptions, and therefore easily recognized. It would take a fairly extreme interpretation to treat this error as if it were a newly-proposed genus name, and it certainly couldn't be considered an emendation, since emendations must be explicitly intentional. Dyanega (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply


If it helps you, Circeus and I discussed these two generic names some time back at User:Monster Iestyn/IRMNG and Dejean's catalogues#Tétramères: Longicornes (see under Anaetia Dejean, 1835). Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That summary has problems. First, Kirby did indeed create a genus Tetrops in 1826, and it did include only one species. Kirby in 1828 explicitly listed only Lamia tornator as an included species, and placed praeusta explicitly in Saperda. There is therefore no subsequent designation of type species possible; the type is Lamia tornator, by monotypy. He also, in that same 1828 work, listed Tetrops as a junior synonym of Tetraopes. It is clearly not a misspelling; evidently he only became aware of the name Tetraopes after 1826 but before 1828. Tetrops Stephens is available, because it has a different type species, but is a junior homonym. If Anaetia Dejean is an available name, then it is the oldest available name that could replace Tetrops. Dyanega (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Checking the original descriptions for myself ... yeah, I see what you mean, Kirby was quite explicit about creating a new genus. Though on the other hand Stephens used the name as "Tetrops Kirby MSS"? (Does the fact he considered it a manuscript name even though he credited Kirby affect anything?) In hindsight I don't know how Circeus came to the conclusion Kirby's name could be a misspelling of Tetraopes Dalman now, odd... Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've asked the Commission about this case directly. There is some inconsistency regarding what to do when someone establishes a new genus and gives it a type species, but attributes the name to someone else. There seems to be no clear differentiation between cases where the name is treated as new versus cases where the name is treated as a subsequent and erroneous later usage. In this case, it does look like Stephens thought the name was unpublished, and the inference is that Stephens intended to create a new genus. Otherwise, I think it could be disputed. Dyanega (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Paratemnopis, gender of genus.[edit]

Would you please take a quick look at this monotypic genus of cerambycids - the single species seems to have been formatted into either masculine or feminine in various databases, at core i started to look at this to merge a misduplication on iNaturalist (which is the source of my investigation). Your view on the gender of the genus name Paratemnopis might hopefully be straightforward. Wider issue is that my doubts on that gender comes via Temnopis (as part of the stem for naming), which is another (still) valid genus in the same family - especially about how and why that seems to have been largely adopted as feminine. [Else sidenote - just in relation to the gender - I see ICZN statement about adopting masculine for genera ending "-ops", but i don't think that applies to what might be derivative latinization, e.g. "-opsis" nor this version "opis".]

I've edited a few bits on both genera here on Wikispecies plus on Wikipedia towards what i'm being led to via Titan database. Here I've linked the online pages/ key papers - so checking those should be quicker for you (than i was faced with). Sjl197 (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The suffix "-opis" falls under Article 30.1, but it's a serious problem because it can have multiple potential derivations. If it is derived from the Greek ending "-ops", which has "-opis" as a variant, then it is masculine, but if it is derived from the pluralized ending "-ope" then it is feminine. For example, the spittlebug genus Cercopis and all genera based on that name are feminine (see κερκώπη in Greek dictionaries). There is also a word "opis" is Latin, meaning "wealth" and that word is feminine. It is an unfortunate loophole of sorts in the Code, that a name that can potentially be Greek or Latin, or have multiple etymologies, has no explicit mechanism for resolution. Under a very liberal interpretation of Article, one could argue that the original formation of an adjectival species name could be used as evidence of author's intention, and reflective of the underlying etymology even if it is not explicit. In that case, Temnopis is masculine, and not feminine, as "Temnopis taeniatus" was the original included species by Audinet-Serville, 1834. If Temnopis is masculine, then so is Paratemnopis. In the TITAN database, the Temnopis entry is directly self-contradictory, as it gives an etymology based on "-ops", and if this is true, then it absolutely must be masculine. Dyanega (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see from the original that Audinet-Serville did give an etymology, and it is based on "-ops", so indisputably masculine under the Code, and Paratemnopis is also therefore masculine. Dyanega (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply


I'm actually not entirely sure how Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga, 2011 revising Bidoma's gender as neuter is a violation of ICZN Article 30.1.3. Looking into the issue myself, the trouble seems to be that Šilhavý, 1973 didn't give an etymology at all in his original article (see here for a PDF of the full issue, Bidoma's description starts at page 142, or page 64 in the PDF), while Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga, 2011 supposed that the genus name was derived from Latin bi- (two) and doma (roof), with the latter being a neuter gender noun, which would make it neuter gender. Was there another possible derivation that would allow Bidoma to be feminine gender? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bi- is Latin, so the entire name is treated as Latin in origin. Conversely, "-doma" is only neuter in Greek, and names are only neuter when the prefix is Greek. The genus "Diadoma" is neuter, under ICZN Article 30.1.2, as it has a Greek prefix. "Bidoma" is feminine under ICZN Article, as it has a Latin prefix. There are a few endings like this where Latin treats it one way and Greek treats it another, and the prefix or etymology are crucial. The ending "-gramma" is a similar problem. As an aside, "-domum" is always neuter, in both Latin and Greek, while "-domus" is - amazingly - FEMININE in Latin, and masculine in Greek. Go figure. Having worked with Alonso-Zarazaga for years, he often vehemently disagrees with the rules set forth in Article 30, and has ignored these rules repeatedly, arguing that his knowledge of Latin and Greek is superior to the people who wrote the Code (that is, Article 30 breaks some of the rules of Latin and Greek grammar, so he has chosen to follow the rules of grammar instead of the rules of the Code). He emends names that are not emendable (such as changing "-i" endings to "-ae"), and makes other decisions at his own personal discretion rather than following the Code. I adhere to the Code. Dyanega (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did make a mistake, hastily writing 30.1.3 instead of, but I just fixed that. I got the two Articles confused for a moment (they both deal with altered suffixes). Dyanega (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a quick aside, scanning the full list of genus-rank names in zoology, nearly all of the names ending in -doma have Greek-specific prefixes. A few are ambivalent (i.e., the same prefix exists in both Latin and Greek, such as Calydoma. Labyrinthidoma and Nanadoma), and a few are neither (e.g. Congodoma and Fijidoma). These names presumably devolve to the original combinations, if there is no etymology. Dyanega (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oddly enough, I actually checked Wiktionary about this too and apparently doma is also considered a neuter noun in Latin. It's borrowed directly from the Greek, and has no relationship to the weird feminine noun domus?? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The "weird feminine noun" is vastly more common and much better attested than the neuter Latin "-doma" you linked to, so I don't exactly trust Wiktionary on this - Wiktionary has a distressing tendency to adopt tautologies, especially in regards to taxonomic names. At any rate, "-domus" does in fact appear in the Code, even, under Article 30.1.1 as an example, and yes, it is given as feminine. As another aside, I see one chrysomelid name, Psalidoma Spaeth, 1899. This is neuter under 30.1.2, but for a different reason; the suffix is not "-doma", but "-oma". The prefix is "psalidos" (for scissors), and the suffix is "-oma". In Greek, "-oma" is a neuter suffix for taking an action. The name "Psalidoma" translates as "cutting with scissors", presumably relating to the feeding damage. People are mistakenly treating Psalidoma as feminine. Dyanega (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to stand up for the original combinations on the genus names Bidoma, Congodoma and Fijidoma, having done some research. In all three cases, an original combination presented an adjectival epithet as feminine (or at least, not neuter). At worst, we can point to article 30.2.3: "If no gender was specified, the name takes the gender indicated by its combination with one or more adjectival species-group names of the originally included nominal species". Dyanega (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough then. Wiktionary does at least give references for doma as a neuter noun such as A Latin Dictionary, but there's no way to tell if Šilhavý was thinking of this or domus in the end so it may not matter. I'll just assume you're right and it's based on domus, since you say it's vastly more common anyway.
Meanwhile with Psalidoma, while what you say makes sense as a derivation, it looks like it was actually Spaeth himself to blame for it being treated as feminine, because he did so himself when naming the species "contracta" and "oblonga" over 20 years after establishing the genus they're placed in: [3]. What this says about Spaeth's own knowledge of Latin, I don't really know. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a different data point, Brown (the de facto scientific name "bible" for decades) lists only "domus" in Latin and "doma" in Greek, and treats them as synonymous for house, dwelling, etc. Neither appears listed under "roof", contrary to the Wiktionary entry, and "A Latin Dictionary". Again, the Code allows for variant endings under both 30.1.3 (for Greek-derived words) and (for Latin-derived words), and this makes deciding genders extremely difficult when a suffix is similar or identical in both languages, but varying in gender. That makes "domus" and "doma" almost impossible to determine in the absence of an etymology, leaving original combinations as a fallback. In Spaeth's case, neither of the two names you mention were originally included in the genus, and therefore they do not constitute evidence. In similar cases, the author's intent, even when visible, is overruled. The genus-rank name Chalicodoma is a great example of this; when Lepeletier described it, he included two feminine adjectival species. But, it's a Greek name, so it can't be feminine. Nearly all subsequent authors have correctly treated it as neuter. Dyanega (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not to worry, I'm aware that taxon authors can be wrong about what gender their genus names should be, from dealing with Sybistroma and Syntormon in Dolichopodidae (the long-legged flies) for instance. I was just observing that Spaeth seems to have been another case of this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then it may interest you to know that Syntormon is very definitely masculine; tormon (τόρμων) is the genitive of the masculine Greek noun for socket. Dyanega (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
...WHAT. Oh dear, in that case I will have to tell the curators at iNaturalist about this, as well as email Evenhuis for him to correct Systema Dipterorum all over again. So I'm aware Neal had just corrected all Syntormon species names to fit a neuter gender on there back this January. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, "tormos" is the Greek masculine noun for socket or hole, and its genitive plural form is "tormon" - and genitives are always the same gender - therefore, in this case, masculine. The name "Syntormon" means "joined holes", an obvious use of the plural form, for an obvious reason. Loew treated it correctly as masculine when he coined it. See, e.g., here for confirmation. I've sent a message to Neal myself. Dyanega (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually beat you to the punch there, I emailed Neal about this last night! XD He's already responded and dealt with this on SD.
Trouble with Syntormon is that some sources were treating it as neuter because of the "-on" ending, particularly the British Diptera checklist at Dipterists Forum: [4], some works by C. Martin Drake [5], and a case Drake co-authored and submitted to the ICZN in 2021 [6] (that appears to have never been published since, oddly... was it withdrawn?). Knowing now that Syntormon is based on a masculine noun, these sources are clearly all wrong. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply