Dear colleagues,
According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Chapter 12, Article 60, especially 60.3 entitled "Junior homonyms without synonyms"), the substitutes for homonymous names lacking valid synonyms, are designated with the new “author name” and a “new date”
A representative example is the following paper:
Kittel, R.N. 2016. Eighty-nine Replacement Names for Braconidae and Ichneumonidae (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea). Japanese Journal of Systematic Entomology, 22 (2): 161–174.
URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311649251_Eighty-nine_replacement_names_for_Braconidae_and_Ichneumonidae_Insecta_Hymenoptera_Ichneumonoidea
I believe this approach is not logical. Those who describe a new taxon, such as a genus or species, invest considerable effort in specimen collection, taxon study, proving the novelty of the taxon, taxon description, illustration, identification key, and distinguishing it from closely related taxa. Moreover, during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, communication systems and the availability of scientific publications were not as advanced as they are today. Therefore, some of the scientific names become homonymous, especially at the species level.
Article 60.3 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online) is as follows:
60.3. Junior homonyms without synonyms
If the rejected junior homonym has no known available and potentially valid synonym it must be replaced by a new substitute name, with its own author and date; this name will then compete for priority with any synonym recognized later.
It simply dedicated an authorship to someone who simply suggested the new name. Do you find this article logical?
What is your opinion on this matter?
Kind regards,
Ali Asghar Talebi
p.s.: I mentioned Dr. Kittel's paper as an example, and I know that she is a distinguished expert on the systematic of Ichneumonoidea.
I appreciate your response.
As you know, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has gradually developed, with some sections amended even in recent years (for example, please see the Chapter 3 of the online version of the Code). Therefore, the avenue for amending the Code should never be closed.
As you well know, regarding synonymous names, when a species is transferred from one genus to another, the original author's name and date are retained, only enclosed in parentheses. According to the Code, if someone wishes to add the name of the person who transferred the species to the new genus, they can do so in front of the original author's name. The question arises: Why isn't a similar rule with small changes applied to homonymous names?
I propose the following modification to this article of the Code:
60.3. Junior homonyms without synonyms
If the rejected junior homonym has no known available and potentially valid synonym, it must be replaced by a new substitute name, with its original author and date; the author and date of the substitute name must be written afterwards. This name will then compete for priority with any synonym recognized later.
For example, based on Kittel, 2016 paper, Ichneumon varius Gmelin, 1790 is a primary junior homonym of Ichneumon varius Pontoppidan, 1763. The substitute name for Ichneumon varius Pontoppidan, 1763 must be written as Ichneumon dickersonae Pontoppidan, 1763, Kittel, 2016, nom. nov., instead of Ichneumon dickersonae Kittel, 2016
I think there is nothing wrong with Article 60.3, provided authors heed Appendix A, Code of Ethics 3. The Commission cannot enforce such compliance. I disagree with your proposed authorship annotation because it will mislead taxonomists into trying to find a later name in an earlier publication, and it is unnecessarily cumbersome.
Je trouve que c'est comme un coup d'état si on remplace entièrement le nom et la date du premier auteur qui a décrit l'espèce. L'honnêteté intellectuelle voudrait que l'on mette entre parenthèse le nom du premier auteur comme auparavant. Le passé ne doit pas être effacé et remplacé par un usurpateur. Ceci est mon opinion en tant que spécialiste des Trichoptères de l'Afrique de l'Ouest.
Pr Dr Wendengoudi GUENDA
The problem with placing an author's name in parentheses is that it is formally used to denote that a species has been recombined with a different genus (Art. 51.3). In botany, the name of the author who recombined it is then added. This is how it would be interpreted if used for a nomen novum. It is obviously unethical to hunt down senior homonyms that can be discarded under Art. 23.9, so that your name can replace their junior homonyms, but otherwise Art. 60.3 suffices. People have only themselves to blame if they have not ensured that their new name is not a junior homonym before publishing it.
In European Chrysidoidea only a few species have been renamed in this way, usually after the original genus was synonymised according to modern insights. A more unsatisfactory situation are several detailed descriptions of newly discovered species, of which the author assumed it had been already described. These descriptions are rejected by the code because no new name was published. This will encourage authors to publish any specimen that is not recognised as a new species, without investing time in extensive research.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Entomology
- Resistance