Stromatium - art. 23.9.5 - zawiłości ICZN

Sprawy związane z zasadami tworzenia i nazywania taksonów, z genetyką itd.
Awatar użytkownika
Jacek Kurzawa
Posty: 9490
Rejestracja: poniedziałek, 2 lutego 2004, 19:35
UTM: DC30
Specjalność: Cerambycidae
profil zainteresowan: Muzyka informatyka makrofotografia
Lokalizacja: Tomaszów Mazowiecki
Podziękował(-a): 4 times
Podziękowano: 1 time
Kontakt:

Stromatium - art. 23.9.5 - zawiłości ICZN

Post autor: Jacek Kurzawa »

Niedawno jeszcze Stromatium fulvum, potem Stromatium unicolor po 2014 r jako Stromatium auratum.
Obecnie jego synonimika wygląda tak:

genus Stromatium Audinet-Serville, 1834b: 80 type species Callidium barbatum Fabricius, 1775
Solenophorus Mulsant, 1839: 65 type species Callidium strepens Fabricius, 1798 (= Callidium unicolor Olivier, 1795)
auratum Böber, 1793: 135 (Saperda) E: AL BH BU CR FR GR HU IT MA MC PT RO SP ST TR UK YU A: AB AR CY GG IN IQ IS JO LE SY TM TR N: AG MO TU LB [see: Lazarev, 2014a: 274]
fulvum Villers, 1789: 256 (Cerambyx) [HN]
inerme Tournier, 1872: 260
pallidum Zubkov, 1833: 336 (Callidium)
platyfemur Chevrolat, 1882: 57 (Hesperophanes)
strepens Fabricius, 1798: 150 (Callidium)
unicolor Olivier, 1795: no. 70: 58 (Callidium)

Ostatnia poprawka została wprowadzona przez Lazareva (2014) Douglas Yanega (University of California, Riverside) http://iczn.org/content/dr-douglas-yanega
skomentował to w ten sposób (w naszej dyskusji na facebook na temat przypadku Stromatium auratum Bober, 1793):

HN presumably means "homonym", then - but homonyms do not get automatically replaced, so the details are VERY important. There are two Code Articles - 23.9.5 and 59.2 - which can lead to junior homonyms being the valid name for a taxon.

Article 23.9.5 of the ICZN indicates that the name that should be used for this is Stromatium fulvum (Villers), of which auratum is a junior synonym.
If, for example, the senior homonym of fulvum Villers (whatever it is) has not been treated as congeneric with it after 1899, then fulvum is the valid name under Code Article 23.9.5, unless someone petitions to suppress it. Everything depends on knowing the senior homonym, and its history of usage.

I found it: Dorcadion fulvum (Scopoli, 1763), originally described as Cerambyx fulvus. It has not been congeneric with Villers' species after 1899, so fulvum is the valid name under the ICZN, and Lobl & Smetana apparently missed this in their summary.

The "resurrection" of auratum seems to be a fairly new thing that has not yet propagated, which is good, as this is clearly not the valid name under the Code. Under the Code, the name is fulvum. The important detail that makes ALL the difference (and allows Article 23.9.5 to be applied) is that people have been using fulvum historically through 2008, as can be seen here: http://lis-02.snv.jussieu.fr/titan/sel_ ... umero=7572
For reference, here is the text of Art. 23.9.5: "When an author discovers that a species-group name in use is a junior primary homonym [Art. 53.3] of another species-group name also in use, but the names apply to taxa not considered congeneric after 1899, the author must not automatically replace the junior homonym; the case should be referred to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power and meanwhile prevailing usage of both names is to be maintained [Art. 82]."

I na koniec:

While not trying to prolong this, or stir up trouble, I would like to point out that I am in communication with Danilevsky regarding this problem and others in the Titan database, where a certain name is listed as preoccupied and the next available name is used as valid, but where this violates Article 23.9.5 - I will reinforce here, for the record, that junior primary homonyms DO NOT require replacement when they have not been congeneric after 1899. Under the provisions of 23.9.5, only when a replacement name is unanimously in use will the situation favor the ongoing use of the replacement, and it would still require a formal ICZN ruling to establish this unambiguously. Until and unless the Commission issues a ruling, anyone is fully entitled to resurrect a junior primary homonym AS LONG AS it has been used after 1899 as a valid name (and therefore not a nomen oblitum; a homonym replaced before 1899 and not used thereafter WOULD be a nomen oblitum, and not eligible for "resurrection" after 1999). In these cases, the effect of the Article is to allow priority to be enforced where doing so creates no conflicts, and to prevent people from suddenly and/or arbitrarily deciding to use or create a replacement name where none is needed. That is why Art. 23.9.5 requires that ONLY a Commission ruling can suppress a homonymous epithet in use, but it is otherwise allowed - by default - to remain in use, and be treated as valid. I recognize that this is not in keeping with various authors' understanding and application of the names in such cases, and that is unfortunate. I can appreciate that this might come across as unfair and intrusive on my part, but I am sincerely trying to be helpful, and fulfill my role as a Commissioner to educate and advocate as to proper application of the Code. I, like most of the Commissioners, also recognize that the Code is not perfect, not easy to understand, and does not always give the result one desires, but it is what we have, and I do my best to uphold it, until we can revise it. The bottom line here is that NO ONE should be using either auratum or unicolor for this beetle; the oldest available name is fulvum, and it is NOT invalid despite being a homonym.

Wszystko wygląda bardzo ciekawie i może być źródłem bardzo ciekawej dyskusji na Forum. Są tylko dwie bariery: angielski i zawiłości ICZN, co utrudnia zrozumienie tego wszystkiego.

Ja to zrozumiałem w sposób nastepujący:
Zastąpienie nazwą auratum mogłoby być przeprowdzone pod warunkiem art. 23.5.9, że ta nazwa była w użyciu po 1899 i do tego jeszcze wymagałoby to akceptacji ICZN. W zaistniałej sytuacji nie było użycia auratum i tylko decyzja Komisji może unieważnić nazwę fulvum, która, pomimo iż jest młodszym homonimem, pozostaje nazwą ważną.

Mam prośbę o komentarz do tego.
------------------
23.9. Reversal of precedence.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/ ... nfv=true#9
ODPOWIEDZ

Wróć do „Taksonomia, systematyka, genetyka”