|
Post by mothylator on Nov 18, 2020 13:22:28 GMT
Hi all, Not sure where best to post this, but many of you are very familiar with ICZN 4thEd + Rev2012. I've tried to solve this online but can't get anywhere. Scenario: A hybrid specimen is originally described as a species or subspecies taxon, but later found to be a hybrid . Questions (ie in Zoological nomenclature, which I appreciate may or may not differ from Botanical):
1. Is the taxon actually a valid taxon? eg Charaxes murphyi, fuscus, octavius; Ornithoptera alexandrae, akakae?
2. If not valid, is the name still available or it is then unvailable?
3. How should a hybrid properly be expressed in writing? eg: Charaxes murphyi (hybrid) (author, date)? Charaxes (parent1 x parent2 ) [Syn=murphyi (author, date)]? Charaxes x murphyi (parent1 x parent2) (author of hybrid status, date)? Charaxes (parent1 x parent2) "murphyi"..... ??
4. If the hybrid is both naturally occurring and fertile, does this change the rules? 5. What difference to the rules (if any) supposing it is a naturally occurring hybrid vs. an unnatural hybrid? 6. Have the rules changed, if so when?
Phew! Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 18, 2020 21:55:22 GMT
Here are all the articles governing hybrids in the ICZN Code:
Article 1.3. Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed 1.3.3. for hybrid specimens as such (for taxa which are of hybrid origin see Article 17.2)
Article 17. The availability of a name is not affected even if 17.2. it is applied to a taxon known, or later found, to be of hybrid origin (see also Article 23.8)
Article 23.8. Application to species-group names established on hybrids. A species-group name established for an animal later found to be a hybrid [Art. 17] must not be used as the valid name for either of the parental species, even if it is older than all other available names for them. Such a name may enter into homonymy. For names based on taxa which are of hybrid origin see Article 17.2.
Your questions: 1. Is the taxon actually a valid taxon?
It is valid insofar as it is the valid name applicable to a particular hybrid.
2. If not valid, is the name still available or it is then unvailable?
It is still available, but only for the hybrid.
3. How should a hybrid properly be expressed in writing? eg: Charaxes murphyi (hybrid) (author, date)? Charaxes (parent1 x parent2 ) [Syn=murphyi (author, date)]? Charaxes x murphyi (parent1 x parent2) (author of hybrid status, date)? Charaxes (parent1 x parent2) "murphyi"..... ??
There is no fixed rule covering this.
4. If the hybrid is both naturally occurring and fertile, does this change the rules?
Not as far as the Code is concerned, unless it can be shown to be a species/subspecies in its own right.
5. What difference to the rules (if any) supposing it is a naturally occurring hybrid vs. an unnatural hybrid?
None really.
6. Have the rules changed, if so when?
No.
I hope this helps.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Nov 19, 2020 9:52:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Nov 19, 2020 13:31:12 GMT
But some things that start off as natural hybrids then get manufactured because people realise they can make a lot of money out of them, e.g. O. alottei.
The Agrias hybrids, like the Heliconius hybrids, are spectacular, but at the end of the day they are mere artefacts. They certainly shouldn't be named as every one is slightly different, and Agrias already suffers from far too many form names.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Nov 19, 2020 15:53:12 GMT
Artificial hybrids are covered by Article 1.3.3, in that names are not allowed to be proposed under the ICZN Code for specimens known by the author to be man-made hybrids and declared as such in the description. Such names would have no standing under the Code, but of course someone can give their hybrids a name if they want to (for commercial or other purposes), the names just would not be recognised under the Code. If someone obtained a hybrid (natural or artificial) without knowing that it is a hybrid and published a description with a new name Article 23.8 would apply to the name, and so would Article 17.2 as a result. The difference between the two cases above would basically be that names proposed for specimens to which Article 23.8 applies are recognised under the Code, and as such are available - mainly with regard to homonymy. In other words, the same name cannot subsequently be proposed for another taxon in the same genus as the name proposed for a hybrid. For example, Papilio nubilus was described by Staudinger in 1895 from Brunei as a species, but has been subsequently shown to be a natural hybrid between Papilio nephelus albolineatus and Papilio polytes theseus. If someone were to publish a paper naming a new taxon in genus Papilio with the sp./ssp. name nubilus the new name would be a junior homonym and unavailable, even though the senior name is recognised as a hybrid. Adam.
|
|
|
Post by mothylator on Nov 27, 2020 15:34:56 GMT
Thanks Adam, and all, this has been very helpful and enlightening. Best seasonal wishes to all.
|
|