Message 2000-07-0009: RE: Art 10.1

Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:06:59 -0400

[Previous by date - Re: Art 10.1]
[Next by date - Re: Stem-based taxon definitions]
[Previous by subject - RE: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - RE: Art. 20]

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:06:59 -0400
From: "Moore, Gerry" <>
To: 'Kevin de Queiroz' <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Subject: RE: Art 10.1

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin de Queiroz [mailto:Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Art 10.1

>KdeQ: "We may want to revise this rule to indicate that it doesn't apply to
>preexisting genus names (or those associated with even higher ranks) that
>are spelled identically (except for capitalization) to preexisting
>On the other hand, we may decide that we do indeed want to prohibit this
>type of homonymy.  In any case, it's an issue that needs to be considered."

Assuming that one does not wish to prohibit this type of homonymy, a revised
Art 10.1 may look like something below.

Art. 10.1. A clade name may not be converted from a preexisting specific or
epithet. However, a clade name may be converted from a supraspecific name
that is spelled the         same as a specific or infraspecific epithet.

Example.:  A clade cannot take the name "Paradoxa" if the name was converted
from the specific epithet in Oenothera paradoxa Hudziok (1968); however, a
clade can take the name "Paradoxa" if the name was converted from the
generic name Paradoxa Mattirolo (1935).     

>KdeQ: "Actually, the purpose of this article was not to prevent homonomies
of the
>type you indicated between clade names and species names.  The purpose was
>to prevent people who didn't believe in species from converting names that
>other people use for species as the names of small clades that have roughly
>the same composition as the species."

OK, the need for Art 10.1 is now clear to me.   

>GM: "Also, Note 10.1.1 seems unworkable since it may oftentimes be
>to know if someone did this deliberately or not."
>KdeQ: "In most cases this shouldn't be difficult to determine.  As long as
>author follows Article 9.5 (citation of the preexisting name upon which a
>converted clade name is based), it should be possible to determine whether
>converted clade name is based on (for example) the genus name Paradoxa or
>the specific epithet paradoxa."

This was not the example I had in mind.  Working under the incorrect
assumption that the goal of Article 10.1 was to prevent homonymy between
clade names and specific (infraspecific) epithets, I was envisioning a
mycologist converting the genus name "Paradoxa" to a clade name with full
knowledge that this name was also used as a specific and infraspecific
epithet in other groups.  To me, the mycologist still violated Art. 10.1
since the conversion was not the "accidental use of a clade name that is
spelled identically to an epithet of a distantly related species" (the
language used in Note 10.1.1).  In such cases it might be impossible to know
if the conversion was accidental or not (i.e., did the author know that the
name he used was also used as a specific epithet?)  This issue is moot under
the revised wording provided above, which makes the distinction between a
specific (or infraspecific) epithet and a supraspecific name that happens to
have the same spelling. 

Gerry Moore
Brooklyn Botanic Garden    


Feedback to <> is welcome!