|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 30, 2019 9:33:48 GMT
Today a new paper was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature:
Lukhtanov, V. A., J. P. Pelham, A. M. Cotton & J. V. Calhoun 2019. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 76: 14-22. Case 3767 – Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793 (currently Parnassius phoebus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing usage of the specific name and that of Doritis ariadne Lederer, 1853 (currently Parnassius ariadne) by the designation of a neotype.
Abstract: The purpose of this application under Article 75.6 of the Code is to conserve the specific names of the European ‘Small Apollo’ butterfly Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius, 1793) and the Altai ‘Apollo’ butterfly Parnassius ariadne (Lederer, 1853) in their current usage. Hanus & Theye (2010) discovered that the traditional concept of the name P. phoebus was a misidentification and published actions contrary to Art. 75.6. We herein request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Papilio phoebus Fabricius, 1793, and to designate a neotype representative of the current usage of P. phoebus.
There will be a period for comments to be submitted to the ICZN before the Commission rules on the case, at least a year from now.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Apr 30, 2019 10:46:24 GMT
If phoebus was incorrectly identified (as I understand) why to change it ? An error is an error and it must be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Apr 30, 2019 13:19:00 GMT
It makes no sense to "fix an error" if doing so has no real value, and particularly not when it causes additional confusion, work, etc.
What good did it do to change the long-known Amphion nessus to Amphion floridensis? Confusion amongst collectors, dealers; publications now "incorrect" and outdated; a break in the nomenclature unless one knows that it's been changed; tens of thousands of mislabeled specimens.
The moth cares not.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by luehdorfia on Apr 30, 2019 13:38:25 GMT
@adam, from you as the expert, how should I call our European high alps small apollo now? Isn’t it Parnassius sacerdos? I have read the dispute of the names between sacerdos and phoebus so many times that now I am completely confused. What’s the current right name for it? And in your opinion what should be the right name?
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 30, 2019 15:22:36 GMT
The problem is that Hanus & Theye realised that the specimen illustrated as the type of Papilio phoebus is actually what everyone calls Parnassius ariadne. Instead of solving this problem by designating a neotype which reflected longstanding usage of the names Parnassius phoebus and P. ariadne they chose a specimen of P. ariadne as the neotype of P. phoebus (thus ariadne became a junior synonym of phoebus) and used the next available name for the species everyone has always known as P. phoebus, which is P. corybas.
We are asking the ICZN Commission to overturn the neotype designation and designate a new neotype for P. phoebus which conforms to overwhelming prevailing usage, thus fixing the names used in all past literature for the future. This specimen comes from Altai: Ongudai, the same locality as traditionally recognised for the nominate subspecies of P. phoebus.
P. sacerdos is the European Alpine species closely related to P. phoebus. We are not affecting the status or nomenclature of that taxon in any way with our application to the Commission. I think there is confusion in posts above because the English vernacular name is the same for P. phoebus and P. sacerdos.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on May 1, 2019 8:29:14 GMT
After ten years, as I undesrtand (I don't know the details and your paper), you wish to reverse the situation and add more confusion. There is the law (the Code) that you use (again, as I undesrtand, following your post) and the spirit of the nomenclature that is "priority to first discoverer/author". If you go in the way of the taxonomists that made error on the interpretation of phoebus, you "kill" the spirit of priority. The same kind of problem in the Code occurs with the use of under subspecific name published before 1960 (as I remember ? maybe 1961) that becomes valid with the name and date of the guy that raised the name to specific level. Also a kind of steal of the first first author merit. A sort of hypocrisis, because if the name is not valid why to accept it under new conditions ? I see the code not only as a guide for nomenclature but also as a very old thing that has been made by a caste of people anxious to preserve their "small world" and exploit the nomenclature to their advantages. I know that what I expressed will be crushed by the defenders of the Code using the Code as the Holy Book, I just wished to express an opinion. I don't know the excact situation of phoebus/ariadne, but if the correctors seem to have revalidated the true identity of these two, why to go against their action ? Just for a labelling and naming problem that disturbs the small habits of collectors ? I had prefer to express this in French to defend more exactly my opinion, not easy in English.
|
|
|
Post by bobw on May 1, 2019 11:08:13 GMT
Nobody is saying that The Code is perfect but we have to have a set of rules for nomenclature otherwise we would have so many different names for things that confusion would reign. Indeed, the principle of priority is one of the main tenets underlying The Code and it is very important. However, stability in naming is also very important; for very many years people have been referring to the "small apollo" as Parnassius phoebus, and even 10 years after the paper by Hanus & Theye, very few people have heard of P. corybas. Jean Hanus did ask me my opinion before he published the paper and I told him that whilst he was technically correct I didn't think it a good idea. In spite of the fact that the populations from the Alps have proved to be a separate species - P. sacerdos and the populations from the Rockies have proved to be P. smintheus (and others), many people still refer to both as P. phoebus, and everybody knows to what they are referring. There are also many other populations which are (or were) P. phoebus, and that is how nearly everybody knows them. Nobody can simply change the usage of a name, it has to be ruled on by The Commission and they will take into account general opinion before making a ruling. There are many precedents for suppressing an older name in order to preserve stability, but it will only normally done where it's in the community's interests.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on May 1, 2019 11:28:13 GMT
Outside the idea it is in opposition to the priority principle .... after ten years, I think the delay is too late. It has been published in very popular revue and many people done yet the correction/changement. Where one will get any stability ? Another case. What about a name that is used for centuries for a "putative population" and that a systematic revision prooved to be a distinct of the typical one ? Nobody will cry because it is newly described with a new name and that most of the material in the collection becomes suddenly wrongly labelled. The case is common in genera and not so rare at specific level. The case here is not so far ...
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 1, 2019 12:52:26 GMT
africaone, The actions of Hanus and Theye have caused confusion over names that have been in constant use in almost all literature for well over 100 years, and clearly contravene the ICZN Code. They could have designated a neotype which preserved overwhelming usage but chose to reverse the usage of the name P. phoebus. There will be a 1 year period for comments to be submitted to the ICZN before the Commission considers the case and eventually makes a ruling. Once the Commission decides one way or another everyone will accept the outcome, but in a case like this it is important that the Commission be given the opportunity to make a ruling. It is unfortunate that it has taken several years for this application to be submitted, partly because it was necessary to wait for the Commission to rule on a previous case. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on May 1, 2019 16:34:23 GMT
africaone "The same kind of problem in the Code occurs with the use of under subspecific name published before 1960 (as I remember ? maybe 1961) that becomes valid with the name and date of the guy that raised the name to specific level. Also a kind of steal of the first first author merit. A sort of hypocrisis, because if the name is not valid why to accept it under new conditions ? " I think you are confused a little bit how it works. The author of a toxan and the year it was published stays valid no matter what the current status of the taxon is. Dozens of taxa in genus Parnassius were described as ssp. or variations and raised later by various authors to a species level -pretty much all the species now in a delphius supercomplex. It does not change an authorship. This has nothing to do with having a correct label above a column of specimens in your collection. Also the "spirit of priority" is not and should not be above all the other rules. It is important to mantain consistency and avoid chaos in a nomenclature. Both names have been used this way for 150 years in all the publications and papers. Now everytime the name P. phoebus will appear somewhere, the question will arise: Did he mean corybas, or ariadne? I am not confused about infra subspeficic level (may the date no more), it is .... see the Holy Code and as I said before, the priority is a fundamental rule in the spirit of the nomenclature. About consistency of nomenclature, that is the responsabilty of the guys that makes error to interpret original description, not the discoverer that is stolen. If evereybody is wrong for 150 years, why to punish the guy that described first ? law is law, ok ... even it doesn't respect fundamental spirit or it is a little hypocrit. Establishment has always right espacially when using the Holy Code that they made themselves for themselves ...
|
|
|
Post by depalma on May 1, 2019 19:35:56 GMT
The problem is that Hanus & Theye realised that the specimen illustrated as the type of Papilio phoebus is actually what everyone calls Parnassius ariadne. Instead of solving this problem by designating a neotype which reflected longstanding usage of the names Parnassius phoebus and P. ariadne they chose a specimen of P. ariadne as the neotype of P. phoebus (thus ariadne became a junior synonym of phoebus) and used the next available name for the species everyone has always known as P. phoebus, which is P. corybas. We are asking the ICZN Commission to overturn the neotype designation and designate a new neotype for P. phoebus which conforms to overwhelming prevailing usage, thus fixing the names used in all past literature for the future. This specimen comes from Altai: Ongudai, the same locality as traditionally recognised for the nominate subspecies of P. phoebus. P. sacerdos is the European Alpine species closely related to P. phoebus. We are not affecting the status or nomenclature of that taxon in any way with our application to the Commission. I think there is confusion in posts above because the English vernacular name is the same for P. phoebus and P. sacerdos. Adam. This is an interesting case, Adam. But I am not persuaded that the Commission will accept the appeal to overturn the neotype designation and reversal of precedence made by the authors. It would be interesting to know what the previous ruling had to say about this case. Can you please elaborate? The Commission may also consider Article 23.9.1 in their ruling: 23.9. Reversal of precedence. In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2], its application is moderated as follows:
23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met:
23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and
23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.Maintaining the prevailing usage of P. ariadne does not seem to satisfy the condition in Article 23.9.1.1. Indeed, the name P. phoebus (a senior synonym) has been used as a valid name after 1899 up to the present day. Although the name P. phoebus has been used to indicate a different taxon, Article 23.9 does not seem to explicitly state the circumstances to which this applies (one or two taxa). So, this may be a special case (two taxa are involved), and I would not exclude that the Commission will support the reversal of precedence for P. ariadne, which will in turn affect the status of P. phoebus.Please let me know if I got this wrong (which is very likely!). BR, Michele
|
|
|
Post by depalma on May 1, 2019 21:21:26 GMT
PS: I checked Opinion 2382. It is on a different topic (albeit related to P. phoebus).
BR, Michele
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 2, 2019 11:32:48 GMT
If phoebus de Prunner had been accepted in place of phoebus Fabricius that would have caused other problems, as de Prunner's specimen belonged to sacerdos, not true phoebus. The result would still have been that true phoebus would be called corybas.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 3, 2019 13:19:24 GMT
Exactly, Adam! So let the Code work That's precisely what we are doing, using a Code compliant method in order to ask the Commission to preserve prevailing usage of all names. If the Commission decides to reject our application then so be it, but if we don't ask then nothing would happen. It is worth noting that Opinion 2382 rejected the previous application by a split decision. It is clear that a percentage of the Commission were definitely in favour of conserving prevailing usage, but the method used in that application was flawed. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on May 20, 2019 12:57:29 GMT
So, you are little bit late. Yes we are late, because we had to wait until Opinion 2382 was published before we could work on a Code compliant method to preserve the names. It is now in the hands of the Commission, and if after a year of comments and further deliberation time they decide to decline the request in our Case, then we will accept that. On the other hand, if we did not make an application then nothing would happen anyway. We felt this issue is important enough that it needs considering and the BZN editors obviously agreed, otherwise our application would not have been published. Adam.
|
|