Nomenclature question

[cabintom]

I've just noticed a species name written as:

Precis octavia sesamus Trimen, 1883#

Whats the "#" indicate?

(It's strange, I never thought I'd enjoy learning about the structure/compostion of nomenclature, but a previous discussion on the topic has really helped me in finding information & descriptions for species. )

Tom

[mygos]

May be a typing mistake, as I have never seen that # before Tom ?

A+, Michel

[Adam Cotton]

It has no relevance to nomenclature. If you saw it in a paper publication either it is a typing error as Michel thinks, or the # refers you to a note somewhere in the work (bottom of the page or in a notes section), but those are usually superscripted numbers or letters, or a *.

Another possibility is that the name was copied and pasted from an online weblink. A # at the end of a weblink directs you to the entry an a particular part of a page, rather than just the top of the page. If someone copied the species name from a hyperlink it is possible that the # was pasted as well as the name.

Adam.

[wollastoni]

Adam, maybe an article about the few important rules of the Code could be interesting for many members, including me.

[Adam Cotton]

There are many important rules in the Code, not just a few, covering all sorts of aspects of nomenclature it might be better to ask about particular topics that people want to know about.

The main objective of the Code is STABILITY, names should only change when they actually have to in order to comply with articles in the Code. To this aim many new clauses were added in 1999 to help preserve prevailing usage of names that otherwise may have to be changed.

One important point that should always be born in mind is the difference between nomenclature and taxonomy. Nomenclature is governed by the rules of the Code, and only involves the way animals are named and the structures (eg. types) that are in place to fix names. Taxonomy uses the Code and the available names to convey relationships between taxa. For instance whether a taxon is a species or a subspecies is a taxonomic decision, and is NOT covered by the ICZN Code. The Code is used by taxonomists to decide what are the correct names for the animals they are studying, eg if a taxonomist decides that 2 taxa are actually the same species they use the Principle of Priority in the Code to choose the oldest available name as the valid name of the species as a whole. Other articles in the Code help a taxonomist decide whether a name is available or not - such as whether it is validly published, a junior homonym or an infrasubspecific name. It is important to bear in mind that the Code does not regulate taxonomy, only the nomenclature that taxonomists use.

Of course compliance with the Code is really voluntary, but the taxonomic community as a whole complies with it because it makes sense to have a single set of rules that everyone follows, so that there are not completely different classifications because some taxonomists follow one set of rules and others another one. The one major exception to this is that Lepidopterists generally (except the Japanese) ignore gender agreement rules in favour of original (or prevailing) spellings. The general opinion of Lepidopterists is that gender agreement is an anchronism and not science. However, this only affects the ending of some species or subspecies names rather than the whole name, so does not create much confusion.

There are actually two main versions of the Code, one English and one French. Both have equal weight, and sometimes one version can be used to clarify ambiguity in the other language. There are also translations of the Code into several other languages, but those do not have authority over the English and French versions.
The English version is online here:
iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp
And the other versions can be found here:
iczn.org/other_languages

The Code is organised into various Chapters to make it easier to find relevant articles (= rules). Here is an overview (A = Article):

Introduction (aims of the Code and changes from previous versions)
Chapter 1 A1-3 Zoological nomenclature
Chapter 2 A4-6 The number of words in the scientific names of animals
Chapter 3 A7-9 Criteria of publication
Chapter 4 A10-20 Criteria of availability
Chapter 5 A21-22 Date of publication
Chapter 6 A23-24 Validity of names and nomenclatural acts
Chapter 7 A25-34 Formation and treatment of names
Chapter 8 A35-41 Family-group nominal taxa and their names
Chapter 9 A42-44 Genus-group nominal taxa and their names
Chapter 10 A45-49 Species-group nominotypical taxa and their names
Chapter 11 A50-51 Authorship
Chapter 12 A52-60 Homonymy
Chapter 13 A61 The type concept in nomenclature
Chapter 14 A62-65 Types in the family group
Chapter 15 A66-70 Types in the genus group
Chapter 16 A71-76 Types in the species group
Chapter 17 A77-84 The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Chapter 18 A85-90 Regulations governing this code
End Pages (including the Glossary which contains definitions of the terms used, an important part of the Code for interpretation of meaning of words in the articles)

I hope this helps give a general overview. Perhaps people can ask about specific points they would like explained in more detail.

Adam.

[cabintom]

Jan 17, 2015 18:44:10 GMT Adam Cotton said:

Perhaps people can ask about specific points they would like explained in more detail.

Adam, could you explain why Papilio bromius needed a name change?

[Adam Cotton]

Jan 17, 2015 20:01:53 GMT cabintom said:

Adam, could you explain why Papilio bromius needed a name change?

That isn't quite what I meant by "specific points", I really meant if anyone wants to understand a concept in the Code in more detail I can elaborate.


Of course I can explain the reason why Papilio bromius can no longer be used. Papilio bromius was described by Doubleday in 1845, but unfortunately Stoll had previously named a butterfly Papilio bromius back in 1787. The Code does not allow homonymy, where two different animals have the same genus and species name, and the newer name has to be replaced by the next available name, or a new replacement name if there is no previously described name available.

Kocak (1983) declared Papilio bromius Doubleday (1845) to be a homonym and replaced it with nurettini for the taxon previously known as ssp. bromius. Since there was an older name available for the species as a whole, Papilio chrapkowskoides, that became the valid name for the species and nurettini is one of the subspecies of Papilio chrapkowskoides.

Many people were unhappy about this, partly because Papilio bromius was a very widely used name, and also because the senior homonym Papilio bromius Stoll, 1787 is actually a Hesperiid, not a Papilio as we know it today.

The latest edition of the Code actually has a new clause specifically to preserve names that are junior homonyms of taxa that were not considered congeneric after 1899 (which means that no-one had placed them in the same genus since then). This clause states that if you discover such a case you MUST not replace the name, but should apply to the ICZN Commission for them to rule on the name. What this means is that until such time as the Commission rules on the name it shall continue to be considered the valid taxon name.

Unfortunately this article cannot be retroactively applied to any name that was declared a junior homonym before 2000 and has already been replaced with another name, as is the case with Papilio bromius, so we are stuck with Papilio chrapkowskoides as the species name.

Adam.

[cabintom]

Jan 17, 2015 20:58:18 GMT Adam Cotton said:

That isn't quite what I meant by "specific points", I really meant if anyone wants to understand a concept in the Code in more detail I can elaborate.

My apologies. I misunderstood, and thank you for answering anyways.

[Adam Cotton]

Tom,

No problem, I am happy to explain individual cases as well as general principles.

With regard to species level homonymy, there are actually two basic types, primary and secondary homonymy.

Primary homonymy is where two taxa were both given the same species/subspecies name in the same genus (even if the two taxa are no longer considered to belong in the same genus), such as the case with Papilio bromius above. Note that for the purposes of the Code species and subspecies names have the same rank and rules, as application of the names is a taxonomic decision. Thus two subspecies of different species **in the same genus** cannot have the same name either. Junior primary homonyms automatically become permanently unavailable names (ones that have been "struck off", and thus cannot be used).

Secondary homonymy is more subjective, less common and can be reversed. This type of homonymy can occur when two species or subspecies which have the same name but were originally described in different genera (thus are not primary homonyms) are subseguently placed in the same genus by a taxonomist who decides to lump the taxa within a single genus. In this case the junior name (the one described later) can no longer be used as long as the two taxa are considered congeneric, and the next available name for that taxon must be used instead. However, if at a later date the two taxa are again split into separate genera the secondary homonymy no longer applies, and the junior name should then be used again since it becomes the oldest available name.

As an example, there are two names orientis in Papilionidae. One is a subspecies of Papilio machaon from Tuva-Sayan and the other was described not many years ago as a subspecies of Achillides krishna, which in reality should not be treated as a separate genus to Papilio. Thus anyone treating Achillides within genus Papilio cannot use the new name orientis for the subspecies of Papilio krishna (if they treat it as worthy of subspecific status anyway). If Achillides is regarded as a valid genus, then there is no homonymy and the name Achillides krishna orientis would be available.

Another example to help explain the idea of homonymy worth considering in Papilionidae is the name simoni. Papilio simoni Aurivillius was described in 1899 for an African species that is now placed in genus Graphium, but polyctor simoni Sturm (2006) was described in genus Achillides. Even though the latter name should really be placed in genus Papilio it is not a homonym, because Papilio simoni Aurivillius is no longer placed in genus Papilio. If Sturm had originally described his subspecies in genus Papilio his name would have immediately been a junior primary homonym, but because he described it in genus Achillides and the original Papilio simoni is no longer placed in that genus there is no problem.

Adam.

[mygos]

Thank you so much Adam with these clear explanations about homonymy. It may seem a bit tough, and it often means that you really have to read everything that has been written on one butterfly before you can write on its systematic position !
Thus the reason on my passion about books, as often older authors did some copy/paste of previous papers without checking themselves what was written originally and therefore mislead to mistakes ...

A+, Michel

[Adam Cotton]

Indeed, Michel, it is amazing how often people either don't check original descriptions or selectively ignore some parts of a description to fit their pre-conceived ideas. It's not only older authors that do this, I am critically examining a paper published just last year that did just that, and also ignores geography at the same time.

Further to my homonymy comments above, I should point out that the Code governs 3 levels of nomenclature: the Family-group, Genus-group and Species-group. The Family-group comprises all names from Superfamily down to any rank above genus and the Genus-group governs all names from genus down but above species. The Species-group governs species and subspecies (anything below subspecies is an unavailable name under the Code. Homonymy is also not allowed within each group, not only at the species level. Thus two genera cannot have the same name, and two families based on genera with similar names cannot be formed identically either. It is also worth remembering that homonymy does not apply between animal and plant or microbe names, so an animal and a plant can have identical names, but not two animals or two plants.

Adam.