Source: http://iczn.ansp.org/wiki/Article70?action=diff&rev1=2&rev2=1
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 17:28:05
Document Index: 762371363

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 69', 'Art. 69', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 70', 'Art. 68', 'Art. 69', 'Art. 67', 'Art. 69', 'Art. 69', 'Art. 67', 'Art. 67', 'Art. 69']

Diff for "Article70" - ICZN Wiki
Diff for "Article70"
⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2007-10-19 19:41:29 →
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 69.1
Another new Article would also be useful.
69.1.4. The author who designates subsequently a name-bearing type does not necessarily have to use the genus-group name for a taxon.
This would provide an explicit ruling for cases in which a genus was mentioned as a synonym, with a type given at that occasion. This is current practice, but those who do not know that, do not always know how to treat such a case.
Art. 69.3 could be extended to cover the same thought:
"If only one nominal species was first subsequently included in or directly associated with a nominal genus or subgenus..."
I understand that "included in" implies that the genus must be used at that occasion. The term "associated with" is used for the synonyms.
2012-11-27 10:02:12
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 70.3
Some formal terms should be clarified.
The usage of the term "this Article" in Art. 70.3.2 is not in accordance with the example (where is said "Art. 70.3", this is a different Article, the Articles in the ICZN Code have no consistent hierarchical order but are arbitrarily numbered). So in Art. 70.3.2 it should clearly be stated "must refer to this Article (or to Art. 70.3)".
It is unclear how this mode of type fixation should be called. This is a combined type designation, the type designation was made in two sources and must both sources always be cited. The term "subsequent designation under Art. 70.3" would be an option. But this is mad if some future Committee of a new Code edition changes the naming of the Articles again, because it happens to ignore the millions of sources where such a term was applied. So a neutral term would be better.
It is probably no option to call the action under Art. 70.3 a fixation, and the "first" source a designation - because if the first source turns out to be incorrect because another designation was overlooked, then the second action under Art. 70.3 will be invalid. Both actions should be called designations.
It is also unclear how the "taxonomic species actually involved" should exactly be defined. There is no eternal truth to determine which species was "actually involved". Also this Article must consider the scientific progress.
This decision can of course only be done under the judgement of the author who reports the misidentification, and who then must have the freedom to select any one nominal species as type that will fit the taxonomic concept personally believed to have been involved in the "first" designation.
A rule is needed to tell what to do in cases of dispute or if again a misidentification was involved, for example if a species is once again split up in the future and the "second" type designation under Art. 70.3 becomes again outdated. This case can be caught by a provision that does not allow to apply Art. 70.3 for a second time, or that explicitly allows to change the type species for an infinite number of times.
The example should be replaced by examples where this Article was used after 1999.
2012-11-14 17:10:04
Order of precedence in ways of fixation should also be given for subsequent type fixations, in analogy to Art. 68.
2012-11-02 10:09:01
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 69.2.4
It is unclear which one should be "the nominal species actually involved". This should be clarified.
"Actually involved" is a very problematic term because it mixes up taxonomy and nomenclature. It seems to be based on the idea that the eternal truth can be found once and forever. Every species has inherently a fixed name, which scientist only need to discover.
But this is not so. A way must be found to establish a fixed type species which cannot change with different taxonomic judgements.
Férussac 1821 established the gastropod name Cochlodina with various species included. Pilsbry 1922 selected as type "Clausilia bidens Draparnaud", a misidentification of Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758 which Férussac had mentioned in the synonymy of a species Helix (Cochlodina) derugata Férussac, 1821 (type locality in France). Which one was the actual species involved?
Kadolsky 2009 (Journal of Conchology 40: 24) argued that the type of Cochlodina (an important genus of European gastropods) was "Turbo bidens sensu Draparnaud 1805 non Linneaus 1758, currently Cochlodina laminata (Montagu 1803) (Turbo)". Férussac 1821 had also listed Turbo laminatus Montagu, 1803 (type locality in England) among the synonyms of Helix derugata.
Those who follow Férussac's view will regard Helix derugata as the species actually involved. Those who follow Kadolsky's view will argue, the species actually involved was Cochlodina laminata (Montagu, 1803), just that Férussac 1821 did not know that this was the actually true name of the involved species (Kadolsky 2009 argued that Férussac's name Helix derugata "is thus an unnecessary junior synonym of the species now known as Cochlodina laminata"). In 100 years once again others might find that Cochlodina laminata from England and France belong to different species - then the type species actually involved will once again change (because then Helix derugata will become a synonym of again another name, or might be used for the French species). If anyone in this case would have priority in deciding which one was the actually involved species, then this should have been Férussac 1821.
Hartmann 1842: 155 established the gastropod name Dyodonta and included two species without fixing a type, one of which was a deliberate misidentification of Clausilia fimbriata Rossmässler, 1835, used in the sense of Menke 1830: 30 and others. Lindholm 1924: 68 selected as type "C. fimbriata, Mühlf.", which referred to this misidentification. Which one is the species actually involved, and who decides this?
The second case would be solved under Art. 67.13.1 in a form that Hartmann established a new name Clausilia (Dyodonta) fimbriata Hartmann, 1842, with fixed identity based on types. Under Art. 69.2.4 the type species depends on the taxonomic judgement of Hartmann's one or more species which in 1842 were actually involved here. With every new revision and every new dispute the type species would change again.
2012-10-14 15:15:20
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 69.1.
A new Article would be useful.
69.1.3. If an author subsequently designates a type species by using an unjustified emendation or an incorrect subsequent spelling of the genus-group name, he or she is deemed to have designated the type species under the correctly spelled genus-group name in absence of expressed evidence for the contrary (see also Article 67.6).
For my proposal to amend Art. 67.6 see under Art. 67.
I think it would be useful to add this point here because treatment of a genus-group name in an incorrect spelling is not addressed anywhere else in the Code and leaves ways open for interpretations that would not be in accordance with the spirit of the Code. Since there is a clear ruling for the specific names, adding the same provision for the genus-group names would make sense.
2010-10-22 09:35:30
FranciscoWelterSchultes CouldNotLock error in Art. 69
A new Article is needed
69.5. Type species by subsequent absolute tautonymy. If a valid species-group name, or its cited synonym, that was first subsequently included in a nominal genus-group taxon is identical with the name of that taxon, the nominal species denoted by that specific name (if available) is the type species (type species by subsequent absolute tautonymy).
This is a logical consequence of the concept of subsequent monotypy. Subsequent monotypy had formerly been called monotypy, and when the new expression "subsequent monotypy" was created, it was forgotten to provide the expressions for subsequent tautonymies.
Examples: Alosa Garsault, 1764 (Actinopterygii) was established without included species. As first author, Cuvier, 1829 included two species: Clupea alosa and Clupea fincta. Type species is Clupea alosa Linnæus, 1758 by subsequent absolute tautonymy.
Rupicapra Garsault, 1764 (Mammalia) was established without included species. As first author, Blainville 1816 included 3 species: Capra rupicapra, pudu and americana. Type species is Capra rupicapra Linnæus, 1758 by subsequent absolute tautonymy.
Erythrinus Scopoli, 1777 (Actinopterygii) was established without included species. We do not know who was the first author to include species, but this was presumably after 1801. Currently Salmo erythrinus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 is recognized as type species. We have to assume that the unresearched first author should have included this species in Erythrinus. If so, this would be type species by absolute subsequent monotypy and regardless of the other included species - even if this author replaced Bloch & Schneider's name to avoid tautonymy, as it was usual in the early times.
Subsequent absolute tautonymy would be helpful to maintain stability of nomenclature in a number of cases.
2009-11-13 16:42:35
Article70 (last edited 2009-04-27 12:42:11 by localhost)