BZN Volume
64, Part 3, 28 September 2007
Comments
Comments
with the following titles were published on 28 September
2007 in Volume 64, Part 3 of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature
Copies
of these Comments can be obtained free of charge from
the Executive Secretary, The International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail:iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Comment
on the proposed conservation of usage of Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth,
1856 (currently Trachycardium egmontianum; Mollusca,
Bivalvia) (Case
3341; see BZN 64: 12–14)
Richard C. Willan
Museum & Art Gallery of the Northern
Territory, G.P.O. Box 4646, Darwin, Northern Territory,
Australia 0820
This proposal represents
the only pathway to achieve nomenclatural stability and
geographical sense in this instance and so I strongly endorse
the request to the Commission. The Application could have
been bolstered by an historical observation relating to
Reeve’s Conchological Iconica, in which
the original error occurred. I have come to appreciate
this problem from my own research on marine bivalves. Reeve
was so busy at the height of the ‘Golden Age’ of
conchology in the mid-nineteenth century receiving shells
from all over the world and publishing attractive monographs
for his subscribers on a regular basis that he committed
numerous unintentional errors like this one. His illustration
of a specimen of Cardium egmontianum with the incorrect
locality of Mindanao, Philippines, from where two other
specimens of a different but somewhat similar, large, brown
speckled species of cardiid genuinely originated, was a
rather typical result of the frenetic pace at which he
must have been working. The late Mr Vidal must have also
realised this was the cause of the mistake and had a desire
for some nomenclatural stability in a group of marine bivalves
where the genera and species are still taxonomically unstable,
hence his selection of one of the specimens from the Philippines
as the lectotype of Cardium mindanense. That selection
(Vidal, 1998) should certainly be validated by the Commission
as both technically correct and thoroughly justified, whereas
the earlier designation by Voskuil & Onverwagt (1992)
of another syntype as ‘holotype’ is
invalid under Article 74.5 of the Code.
Comment on the
proposed conservation of Termes
serratus Froggatt, 1898
(currently Microcerotermes serratus) and Termes
serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes
serrula) (Insecta,
Isoptera, TERMITINAE) (Case
3385; see BZN 64:
83–86)
Yves Roisin and Jacques M. Pasteels
Behavioural & Evolutionary Ecology – CP 160/12,
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt
50, B – 1050 Brussels,
Belgium
(e-mail: yroisin@ulb.ac.be)
When we discovered the
unjustified replacement of Termes
serratus Haviland and
conservation of Termes serratus Froggatt by Desneux (1904),
we recommended the strict application of the Principle
of Priority instead of applying to the Commission to conserve
the junior names (Roisin & Pasteels, 2000).
To reach this decision, we followed the guidelines of Article
79(c) of the 3rd Edition of the Code (current at the time
of submission), stating that a prima facie case that stability
is threatened would be made by the Commission if the junior
name had been applied to a particular taxon as its presumably
valid name by at least 5 different authors and in at least
10 publications during the immediately preceding 50 years.
We did not find 10 citations of Microcerotermes
serratus (Froggatt) in the period 1950–1999; Jones himself
(BZN 64: 83–86) lists
only seven records of this name during this period, one
of which is in a purely nomenclatural work (Watson et al.,
1998). As to Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux), this name
was even less frequently used: four records in the same
period, according to Jones (BZN 64: 83–86). In addition,
for both species, citations appeared almost exclusively
in faunistic inventories or identification guides. Neither
species has been the subject of any biological study of
importance. Saying they are well-known (Jones, BZN 64:
84, para. 7) is an overstatement. Considering both the
Code’s
guidelines and our personal feeling, we estimated that
the current usage of both junior names was so low that
the strict application of priority rules would neither
cause substantial confusion nor be a threat to nomenclatural
stability, and that asking the Commission to use its plenary
power to overturn priority would not be justified in this
case.
In the Fourth Edition of the Code, although the guidelines
of former Article 79(c) have disappeared, a procedure has
been set up to allow the automatic rejection of senior
synonyms or homonyms. However, the conditions are very
strict (Article 23.9.1): the senior name must not have
been used as valid since 1899 (23.9.1.1) and the junior
name must have been used as valid in at least 25 works
in the last 50 years (Article 23.9.1.2 – additional
conditions apply). In this case, the first condition is
not satisfied since Microcerotermes
serratus (Haviland)
was used as valid by Holmgren, 1911 and Roisin & Pasteels,
2000, and the recent usage of either Microcerotermes
serratus (Froggatt) or Microcerotermes
serrula (Desneux) is far
below that required to meet the second condition (see above).
Jones’s present application (BZN 64: 83–86)
not only requires the re-examination of the case per se,
that is, whether or not the correction of the unjustified
replacement of Termes serratus Haviland by Desneux (1904)
threatens stability. It also requires that the Commission
dismiss our own decision relative to this case, which was
published in a broadly distributed, peer-reviewed international
journal (Roisin & Pasteels, 2000). As a general rule,
we believe (1) that authors, as we did, should generally
attempt to resolve nomenclatural problems according to
the principles of the Code and avoid applying to the Commission
if not absolutely necessary (after all, this is what the
Code stands for), and (2) that the Commission should not
overturn authors’ recent decisions unless these decisions
are demonstrably foolish, because this would be a definite
source of considerable confusion. In the present case,
we believe our decision cannot be deemed foolish since
we precisely followed the Commission’s own guidelines.
After 2000, Jones himself and his co-workers of the
Termite Research Group of the Natural History Museum (Jones & Prasetyo,
2002; Gathorne-Hardy, 2004) used Microcerotermes
serrula (Desneux) as valid, ignoring
Roisin & Pasteels’s
(2000) decision. The reason for doing so is not explicitely
stated. It is likely that our work (Roisin & Pasteels,
2000) was merely overlooked, since Jones & Prasetyo
(2002) similarly used the invalid Microcerotermes
dubius (Haviland), also rejected by us, and did not
apply to the Commission sooner. Now, Jones (BZN 64:
83, para. 3) cites his own and his co-workers’ post-2000
works (Jones & Prasetyo,
2002; Gathorne-Hardy, 2004) as evidence that Microcerotermes
serrula (Desneux) is now ‘widely accepted and
used extensively’. It should be noted that this
name should not be considered as published in Jones et
al. (2003), since it only appears in an electronic supplement,
explicitly excluded by Article 9.8. This sounds like circular
reasoning. Furthermore, Jones’s application raises
an ethical issue, since it is not independent from his
own and his co-workers’ interests: a positive decision
of the Commission in this case would constitute an endorsement
of their post-2000 use of invalid names, which otherwise
could not be justified.
In conclusion, we believe: (1) that because the involved
names were so infrequently used, our corrections (Roisin & Pasteels,
2000) did not result in ‘considerable confusion and
nomenclatural instability’ (as stated
by Jones: BZN 64: 83, abstract); (2) that because our explicit,
published decision was correct and consistent with the
Commission’s
guidelines, it should be upheld for the sake of nomenclatural
stability; and (3) that to counter nomenclatural anarchy
and discourage negligence, the Commission should refrain
from endorsing a posteriori an erroneous use of
names by the applicant or his co-workers. We therefore
recommend that Jones’s application be rejected.
Comment on the proposed
fixation of the feminine gender of the genus and the form
of derivation of family-group names based on Trachys Fabricius,
1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case
3335; see BZN 63: 172–176, 273–274; 64:
64–66)
Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga
Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva, Museo
Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), C/. José Gutiérrez
Abascal, 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain
(e-mail: zarazaga@mncn.csic.es)
I disagree with
the proposal to fix the gender of the genus Trachys Fabricius,
1801 as feminine and agree with the opposing comments made
by Bellamy, MacRae, Rifkind and Wescott. However, in my
opinion, some additional points need to be made.
In the case of the genus Trachys Fabricius,
1801, a quick look at any Classical Greek dictionary will
show that the word trachýs is
the nominative singular form of an adjective having three
different forms: masculine trachýs,
feminine tracheîa, and neuter trachý and
meaning ‘‘rough’’.
According to Article 30.1.2, the Fabrician genus is masculine,
since there is no negation of Latin or Greek in Fabricius’s
work for this genus, which could be the only exception
admitted, according to Article 30.1.4.1. The authors of
the case apparently discard any resort to Article 30.1.4.2,
since there is no possibility of considering the Greek
word trachýs as of
common or variable gender: it is clearly masculine. The
word trachýs belongs
to a peculiar kind of Greek adjective: it is a very short
class of adjectives ending in masculine in -ys (not
in -achys as MacRae and Rifkind say), but very
frequent in zoological genus-group names. Of the 29 regular
members and the three irregular members, 14 in their ‘‘pure’’ state
are used as genera (Amblys, Bathys, Brachys, Brithys, Drimys,
Elachys, Eurys, Ithys, Ocys,
Pachys, Prays, Tachys, Thrasys and Trachys),
and 20 as the final element in compounds (only 12 have
never been used as such). The total number of genus-group
names is 430. Bellamy’s, Macrae’s and Rifkind’s
mention of genera having the same ending and the same problem
is thus very short. If such an exception of the rules is
allowed, what will happen with these genera? Should we
apply the same gender and the same stem to these? If not,
what are the consequences to our need for simple rules
of nomenclature for the scientific community?
I agree that Fabricius used feminine endings for
adjectival species names in combination with Trachys in
the original description. The authors want to see in this
a particular wish of Fabricius. I consider they ignore
the most obvious explanation: Fabricius carried the feminine
gender of Buprestis to his new genus, by mistake
(B. minuta, B. pygmaea and B.
nana were among the combined
species in his treatment), my opinion being here in agreement
with Wescott’s.
But see also below for another explanation.
For substantiation of their argument that most uses
listed by them are feminine (para. 3 of the application),
the authors give a list of references using Trachys as
feminine or masculine, including several catalogues. Curiously
enough, in no part of Article 30, can the reader find that ‘‘prevailing
usage’’ could be invoked to reverse the rules
there included. In this respect, Article 30 is solid. This ‘‘prevailing
usage’’ can be invoked for reversal of precedence
and other instances, but not here. Should authors who accurately
follow the rules of the Code be ignored because there are
many more authors who don’t follow the rules? The
Glossary of the Code states that prevailing usage must
be understood as that ‘‘adopted
by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors’’.
I cannot see a substantial majority following
usage as feminine among recent authors, i.e., those publishing
in the 20th century, which, according to the authors (para.
3) were: Kerremans, Théry, Jakobson, Schaefer, Obenberger,
Kurosawa, Descarpentries, Villiers, Rikhter, Alexeev, Bílý,
Burakovski and Bellamy (13) versus Bedel, Théry,
Schaefer, Horion, Harde, Bílý, Cobos, Curletti,
Köhler, Klausnitzer, Arnáiz
Ruiz (11) using masculine. As anyone can see, some authors
seem to be hesitant about gender use, including one of
the authors of the proposal. It is rather evident that
the latter followed the rules of the then extant Code,
while the former did not.
To reinforce their argument, the authors state that ‘‘we
should accept ‘Trachys’ as a non-standard
name’’, because ‘‘he
used a feminine genitive Trachydis’’ (my
italics) (para. 1.2). The first statement is a subjective
appreciation, grounded only on others’ opinions (e.g.
Harold, 1870) and not on facts. In fact, Fabricius’s
Systema Eleutheratorum is written in acceptable
Latin, and all the genera originally described there are
perfect Latin or Greek words. However, genitive formation
is very important to ascertain the stem for family-group
name derivation. I cannot support Bellamy’s statement
that the genitive of trachýs is trachyos.
The reasons are as follows: Greek adjectives ending in
-ys belong to a wider class of nouns and adjectives.
Buck & Petersen (1944) distinguish two kinds of Greek
adjectives or substantives having a -y-stem:
1. The first one (with masculine form ending in –ys and
neuter form ending in -y) make their genitive
singular in -yos, -eōs or -eos.
In this class, there are adjectives (of the type trachýs)
and substantives, either masculine (bótrys ‘‘bunch
of grapes’’, présbys ‘‘old
man’’, ichthýs ‘‘fish’’),
feminine (chélys ‘‘tortoise’’,
ixýs ‘‘waist’’, ophrýs ‘‘eyebrow’’)
or neuter (pôy ‘‘flock’’,
síne`py ‘‘mustard’’ and
the Homeric versions of góny ‘‘knee’’ and
dóry ‘‘spear’’);
the number of words is this class is very high.
2. The second class is composed of about 13 elements
(some of which also have an alternative declension following
the first class) that make their genitive singular in -ydos.
It includes only two adjectives (sýgklys ‘‘washed
together by the waves (metaphorically))’’ and épēlys ‘‘incomer,
stranger’’ and its derivatives, both invariable),
together with feminine (dagýs ‘‘wax
doll’’, chlamýs ‘‘short
mantle’’, emýs ‘‘freshwater
tortoise’’, pēlamýs ‘‘young
tuna’’), common (sýnēlys ‘‘companion’’ and
other substantivised derivatives of -ēlys and sýgklys)
and masculine (pálmys ‘‘Lydian
king’’,
also a proper male name) substantives.
Latin dictionaries (I have used the classical one
by Lewis & Short
(1980)) give a few words ending in –ys in
the nominative singular. All these words are of Greek origin
(cf. Liddell & Scott, 1996) and usually retain the
Greek declension, including the genitive. Only four words
have been found in Latin literature ending in -ys and
having an ending in -ydis: aclys (‘‘small
javelin’’),
chlamys (‘‘military cloak’’), emys (‘‘freshwater
tortoise’’) and pelamys (‘‘young
tuna’’). All four are
feminine in gender and belong to the 3rd Latin imparisyllabic
declension, although usually they retain the Greek transliterated
declension, or, in the case of chlamys, adopt
a preferred Latin structure, chlamyda, -ae (1st
Latin declension). This ending -ydis is a Latin
adaptation of the original Greek 3rd declension genitive
for dental stems -ydos.
It is clear that the argument presented by Bilý & Kubánˇ that
the genitive ending -ydis is feminine is false,
as it can be originally in Greek a part of the masculine,
feminine or common paradigm (as –ydos) and
that only chance is responsible for the only three Greek
words of this class passing into Latin being feminine (and
belonging to the subclass having a smaller number of representatives).
In fact, 3rd Latin declension for non-Greek words includes
exactly the same genders (apart from neuter): masculine,
feminine or common. Probably this fact again led Fabricius
to consider mistakenly that in Latin, trachys should
follow the declension paradigm of the other three Greek
words known to be introduced into Latin, namely, chlamys,
emys and pelamys, while the correct genitive
form should have been trachéos. However,
the ending -ydis cannot reveal anything about
gender in a word unless you check the nominative in a dictionary,
except that the word should keep the original Greek gender.
The genitive form of adjectives of the trachýs form
is trachéos (Buck & Petersen, 1944,
p. 19) and not trachyos as stated by Bellamy,
the ending –yos belonging
only to nouns of the same class. However, what is its stem
for forming family-group names? The first problem is the
meaning of the word stem, which is different in its philological
and zoological concepts. While the latter is clearly diagnosed
in the Glossary of the Code as ‘‘that part
(or the whole) of the name of the type genus to which is
added a family-group suffix’’ and
its correlated genitive ending as ‘‘the
letters at the end of the genitive case of a Latin or Greek
generic name which are deleted
[Article 29.3] to form a stem, before adding a suffix to
form a family-group name’’, the fact is that
we still do not know which letters should be deleted as
an ‘‘ending’’. Or, to say it clearly,
we are not aware that the zoological concept of stem does
not coincide with the philological concept of stem, and
from there the different interpretations start. To limit
myself to the word in question, the word in genitive shows
a root (trach), a root suffix (e) (present
in all cases except nominative, accusative and vocative
singular) and a genitive case ending (os). However
the philological stem is still trachy- (the group
of words having a y as the final letter of the
stem share peculiar morphological traits in their declension)
while the Glossary of the Code defines as zoological stem
trache-. It is clear that the next Code should
address this disparity in criteria. The same premises must
be taken into consideration when treating other genera
derived from the same class of adjectives, and, consequently,
of genera ending in –ys listed above. Bilý & Kubánˇ are
inconsistent in recognising a genitive Trachydis and
not a stem Trachyd- in this case, following Article
29.3.1, as Reitter (1911) did, probably following Article
4 of the Règles then in force. Since the Glossary
is mandatory, I propose here the following amendment to
the application:
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
is accordingly asked:
(1) to rule that, for zoological purposes, the stem of
the genus Trachys is Trache-, according
to the mandatory dispositions of the Glossary;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
the name Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (gender: masculine),
type species by subsequent designation by Westwood (1838)
Buprestis minuta Linnaeus, 1758;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology the name minuta
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buprestis
minuta (specific name of the
type species of Trachys Fabricius, 1801);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names
in Zoology the name TRACHEIDAE Laporte, 1835 (type genus
Trachys Fabricius, 1801), a corrected original
spelling, according to (1) above;
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names, as incorrectly
derived from Trachys Fabricius,
1801:
(a) TRACHISIDAE Laporte, 1835 (an incorrect original spelling);
(b) TRACHYINAE Gavoy, 1897;
(c) TRACHYDINI Reitter, 1911;
(d) TRACHYINI Kerremans, 1893;
(e) TRACHYNINI Kraatz, 1869.
As a final reflection, I would like to say that the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has clear
rules about the interpretation of the gender of genus-group
names in the dispositions of Article 30. Evidently, perfecting
the Code is possible, but zoologists should aim at perfecting
their activities as well. Perhaps one of the virtues lacking
in many of us is subjection to rules. The Code is made
for helping us in our everyday work, not to causing a loss
of time and effort in fighting against it. The rule that
this application tries to circumvent has been in force
since 1905, so several generations of zoologists have had
enough time to learn it and put it into practice. Departing
from the rules is dangerous if we want to keep stability,
because the exceptions create doubts, and insecurity is
the seed of instability. If you find a genus Trachys, that
according to the Code and the Greek dictionary is masculine,
being used as a feminine genus, you can think either that
it is a mistake and treat it as masculine or you realise
that there could be some ruling of the Commission admitting
this exception and look for it. In the second case, you
lose your time and confidence in the simple rules of the
Code, so that you cannot be sure they will work in all
cases.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank here my good colleague and friend, Dr.
J.A. Berenguer Sánchez, of the Instituto de Filología
(CSIC), Madrid, for his help and support during the preparation
of this article.
Additional references
Buck, C.D. & Petersen, W. 1944. A reverse
index of Greek nouns and adjectives arranged by terminations with
brief historical introductions. xvii,
765 pp. The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lewis, C.T. & Short, C. 1980. A
Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s
Latin dictionary. Revised, enlarged, and in great part
rewritten. xvi, 2019
pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Liddell, H.G. & Scott,
R. 1996. A Greek-English
Lexicon. New (9th) edition revised and augmented throughout
by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick
McKenzie and with the co-operation of many scholars. With
a supplement. xlviii, 2111 pp. Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Comments on the proposed
precedence of Buprestis angustula Illiger, 1803 (Insecta,
Coleoptera) over Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793
(Case 3388; see BZN
64: 178–181)
(1) C.L. Bellamy
Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch, California
Department of Food & Agriculture,
3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A.
(e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov)
Although the ‘priority
purists’ will
disagree, I am in complete agreement and support Dr Jendek’s
application (Case 3388) to the Commission asking that they
recognize Agrilus angustulus (Illiger, 1803) as having
precedence over Agrilus pavidus (Fabricius, 1793) when
these names are considered synonyms for the reasons stated.
(2) Gianfranco Curletti
Museo Civico di Storia Naturale,
Parco Cascina Vigna Via S. Francesco di Sales 188, 10022
Carmagnola, TO Italy (e-mail:
giancurletti@tiscalinet.it)
I write to register my support for the proposed precedence
of Buprestis angustula Illiger, 1803 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
over Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793, as the matters of
the case are presented thoroughly and completely.
(3) Svatopluk Bílý
Department of Entomology, National
Museum, Kunratice 1, 14800 Praha 4, Czech Republic (e-mail: sv.bily@jelly.cz)
I support the application by Dr E. Jendek concerning the
proposed precedence of the specific name Agrilus
angustulus (Illiger, 1803) over Agrilus
pavidus (Fabricius, 1793)
because the former name has been used for two centuries
for the most common European Agrilus species both in taxonomic
and bionomical publications. This very common species is
one of the potential vectors of serious diseases of oaks
and change of the name would be confusing for all workers
in forestry and applied entomology since they are usually
not familiar with the taxonomy and nomenclature. As explained
in the application by Dr E. Jendek, the synonymy and wrong
interpretation of both names is rather complicated and
the conservation of the name A. angustulus (Illiger, 1803)
is the best solution of this case. The main goal of the
Code and the Commission is stability of the nomenclature,
so it is undesirable to dig up an unused name even it is
older.
Comment on the proposed conservation of Columba
roseogrisea Sundevall, 1857 (currently Streptopelia
roseogrisea; Aves,
COLUMBIDAE)
(Case
3380; see BZN 64: 108–112)
Paul Salaman
International Programs Director,
American Bird Conservancy, P.O. Box 249, The Plains, VA
20198, U.S.A. (e-mail: psalaman@abcbirds.org)
I am the first author
of two checklists of the birds of Colombia (Salaman et
al., 2001; 2007). In the second checklist, we treated Streptopelia
risoria as an introduced species. The name for such introduced
populations has been an issue for ornithologists for some
time. Various different names have been used, as discussed
in Case 3380. I fully support Thomas Donegan’s suggestion
that the same approach be adopted for Streptopelia as for
other domestic/wild species name pairs in mammals and other
groups, in order to promote stability and universality.
Additional references
Salaman, P., Cuadros, T., Jaramillo,
J.G. & Weber,
W.H. 2001. Lista de chequeo
de las aves de Colombia. 116
pp. Sociedad Antioqueña de Ornitologia,
Medellín.
Salaman, P., Donegan, T. & Caro, D. 2007. Listado
de Avifauna Colombiana 2007. Conservación Colombiana
Suplemento (Marzo 2007). 85 pp. Fundación
ProAves, Bogotá, Colombia.
