Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poecilotheria nallamalaiensis / formosa synonymy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Poecilotheria nallamalaiensis / formosa synonymy

    Gabriel, R. 2010. Poecilotheria nallamalaiensis Rao et al., 2006, a junior synonym of Poecilotheria formosa Pocock, 1899. Newsl. Br. arachnol. Soc. 118: 12-15.

    No abstract required really!

    Download now from the BTS website "Downloads section"....

  • #2
    Hi,

    I have tougth that when there is no type depository specified (thus no valid description according to the ICZN Code?) then we are calling it nomen nudum (as in many examples listed in WSC by Platnick) while nomen dubium is used when e.g the holotype is destroyed. If so, then shouldn't it be considered as nomen nudum rather than nomen dubium?

    Regards,
    Tomasz
    "There's No Escaping
    Their Web of Terror..."

    Visit my site at: http://ptaszniki.com.pl

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Tomasz,

      I thought it is like you say and that's how Platnick seems to use it, but if you check the definition of nomen nudum in the ICZN glossary, it says:

      nomen nudum (pl. nomina nuda), n.
      A Latin term referring to a name that, if published before 1931, fails to conform to Article 12; or, if published after 1930, fails to conform to Article 13.

      I've checked Art. 13., but it doesn't mention anything about designating a holotype anywhere, so I'm confused as well (or maybe I'm missing something). However, nomen dubium seems to be a fitting term (theoretically), because if there's no type (for whatever reason), that makes the name indeed dubious.

      -Zoltan
      Spider Myths | Curious Taxonomy | The World Spider Catalog - Theraphosidae

      "We are all taxonomists." -Judith Winston
      "The laws of biology are written in the language of diversity." -Edward Osborne Wilson
      "Principle of Priority - the oldest fool is always right!" -H. Segers & Y. Samyn

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Zoltan,

        ok, then according to ICZN glossary nomen nudum is an unavailable name which fails to conform to Article 13 (if published after 1930), while designating a holotype and specifying the type depository is mentioned a bit later in Article 16.4.1 and Article 16.4.2, respectively.

        They refer to some other articles and recomendations, with the Recomendation 73C6 (the one that is mentioned in the paper) among them.

        So it seems that if it's only the type specimen depository that was not originally specified, we cannot say that it is nomen nudum indeed. But it seems that we can still say that such a name is not an available one, as it has to follow the criteria in Articles 1-3 and 10-20:

        How does a name become available?

        To become available, new names must be published following the criteria in Articles 1.3 & 10-20. (...)
        Source: What is the difference between availability and validity of names?

        The same definition of nomen nudum which designates only a subcategory of the category of nomina that are nomenclaturally unavailable (as they fail to conform to any of the Articles 1-3 and 10-20) is proposed in the following paper:
        • Dubois, A. & Nemésio, A. (2007) Does nomenclatural availability of nomina of new species or subspecies require the deposition of vouchers in collections? Zootaxa 1409: 1-22

        I have just noticed that in the most of the cases the "nomen nudum" and "no type depository" terms in the WSC are separated by the coma. There are also some nomina nuda without "no type depository" term. So it looks like this terms are describing two different situations indeed. But there is at least one case which makes me confused:

        Haplopelma chrysothrix Schmidt & Samm, 2005: 5, f. 1-8 (mf, nomen nudum as no type depository was cited).
        Admittedly, in the Article 13.4 it is said that:

        "(...)(a species-group taxon so described after 1999 must also satisfy the conditions of Article 16.4)"
        however it looks like it is applicable only to combined descriptions of new genus-group taxon and new species...
        But maybe the conditions of Article 16.4 must be satisfied no matter if it is combined description or only a species description? Maybe Article 16.4 is considered as supplementary to Article 13 (for names published after 1999, of course) and then it is correct to say that when there is no type depository specified then we have nomen nudum? It seems that this interpretation was used by Martin >> here << and >> here <<.

        Anyway, if there is no type depository specified, then the name fail to conform one of the required criterions and thus it is an unavailable one. Providing that the Commision didn't ruled it to be available nevertheless (as they can do that according to Article 10.1), then such a name cannot be treated as vaild or invalid (the name can be available but not valid, but cannot be valid and not available if I understand correctly - see below) and it cannot be treated as nomina dubia anyway...? Or I have missed something?

        Can a name be available but not valid?

        Yes, e.g. a junior synonym or junior homonym can be available but not valid. Invalidity does not make a name unavailable (Article 10.6).
        How does usage affect availability and validity?

        Available names which cannot be interpreted and are not used, e.g. if the type is missing, can be a problem for taxonomists. Such a name is often referred to as a nomen dubium (plural nomina dubia) or dubious name. (…)
        Source: What is the difference between availability and validity of names?
        Last edited by Tomasz Drożdżal; 22-02-11, 07:17 PM. Reason: language mistakes..
        "There's No Escaping
        Their Web of Terror..."

        Visit my site at: http://ptaszniki.com.pl

        Comment

        Working...
        X