Cerambycoidea Forum
Cerambycoidea Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Generalities
 Various
 Armiger grassator
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Capitaine
Scientific Collaborator

France
1706 Posts

Posted - 29/05/2015 :  10:40:14  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Juste une remarque pour les administrateurs, dans la gallery se trouve représenté un ex. de "Armiger grassator" genre invalidé au travers de la révision Komiya/Drumont sur le groupe Rugosophysis. Le nom valide est donc Rugosophysis grassator (Quentin&Villiers,1981 nec Voet,1778).
Armiger est invalidé (ICZN) a cause de son homonymie avec Armiger Hartmann,1840 qui est un mollusque..

Claude

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
9034 Posts

Posted - 20/06/2015 :  16:10:51  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
La raison est que je ne suis pas convaincu des raisons de cet article.
Selon les auteurs, Armiger n'est pas invalidé par Armiger Hartmann, 1840, mais du fait que le nom de Voet est invalide car toute son oeuvre est invalide.
Selon les auteurs, ça aurait été suivi par "presque tous les entomologistes du globe" (mais ils ne citent que deux articles), et ils notent aussi que le CINZ n'a jamais pris de position sur cette oeuvre car, "selon Andrew Polaszek (in litt.), la nature du livre le rende automatiquement invalide".

Ors, ça n'est pas vrai.

Selon le CINZ, le seuls noms que sont automatiquement exclue par le Code sont

(1.3.) Exclusions. Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names proposed
1.3.1. for hypothetical concepts;
1.3.2. for teratological specimens as such;
1.3.3. for hybrid specimens as such (for taxa which are of hybrid origin see Article 17.2);
1.3.4. for infrasubspecific entities unless the name was subsequently deemed to be an available name under Article 45.6.4.1;
1.3.5. as means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature;
1.3.6. after 1930, for the work of extant animals;
1.3.7. as modifications of available names [Art. 10] throughout a taxonomic group by addition of a standard prefix or suffix in order to indicate that the taxa named are members of that group
.


Encore, les articles (ou les livres) sont considérés comme "pas publiés" si

Article 9. What does not constitute published work. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 8, none of the following constitutes published work within the meaning of the Code:

9.1. after 1930 handwriting reproduced in facsimile by any process;
9.2. after 1985, works produced by hectographing or mimeographing;
9.3. before 1986 and after 2012, works issued on optical discs;
9.4. photographs as such;
9.5. proof sheets;
9.6. microfilms;
9.7. acoustic records made by any method;
9.8. labels of specimens;
9.9. preliminary versions of works accessible electronically in advance of publication (see Article 21.8.3);
9.10. materials issued primarily to participants at meetings (e.g. symposia, colloquia, congresses, or workshops), including abstracts and texts of presentations or posters;
9.11. text or illustrations distributed by means of electronic signals (e.g. via the Internet), except those fulfilling the requirements of Articles 8.1 and 8.5.
9.12. facsimiles or reproductions obtained on demand of an unpublished work [Art. 8], even if previously deposited in a library or other archive.


Pour cela, le noms de Voet ne peuvent pas être "automatiquement exclus".

La raison de cette exclusion serait que le livre de Voet ne suive pas la nomenclature binomiale.
Mais ça n'est complètement vrai non plus, car il y a plusieurs noms binomials et trinomials tandis qu'il n'existe pas un article du code qui permet de supprimer un oeuvre car il y a quelque noms "pas binomials ou trinomials".

Si on veut supprimer l’ouvre, il faut suivre l'art. 8.7. Status of suppressed works.
A work that has been suppressed for nomenclatural purposes by the Commission by use of the plenary power [Art. 81] and that satisfies the provisions of this Article remains published within the meaning of the Code, unless the Commission has ruled that it is to be treated as not having been published.

Donc, seulement la Commission peut supprimer une oeuvre. Mais jusq'à présent celle-ci n'a pas encore été supprimée.
Go to Top of Page

Francesco
Forum Admin

Luxembourg
9034 Posts

Posted - 26/02/2020 :  09:20:52  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit Francesco's Homepage  Reply with Quote
After a long discussion with Doug Yanega, it resulted that Voet's work is really unavailable.

I refer Yanega's words, which being on a public site are public, and they are helpful to all.

ALL of their [Breuning's and Teocchi's var./ab.] quadrinomials (of which there are relatively few, at most 10% of the names in Breuning's works, for example) used annotations to expressly indicate that the fourth name was in addition to a Linnaean trinomen.
Under Article 45 of the Code, all of their quadrinomials are permanently unavailable, but the works themselves are not excluded because they adhere to the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature, which is defined in the Code's Glossary.
Voet NEVER indicated that his trinomials were subspecies, or that his quadrinomials and quinquenomials were infrasubspecific - in failing to do so, there is no evidence that Voet was following the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature at all.
In plain fact, by virtue of his simultaneous publication of the two exact translations as part of the corpus, one in French and the other in German, in which all of Voet's "scientific names" are translated into French and German vernaculars, the evidence suggests that his Latin names were also intended as Latin *vernaculars*, rather than following Linnaeus' model.
If the only surviving copies of Voet's works had the Latin third of the corpus omitted, there isn't a single name that would tempt anyone to try to use it in taxonomy.
It RESEMBLES a Linnaean-style work but it is something entirely different, and not part of Zoological Nomenclature.
Breuning and Teocchi, however, explicitly recognized and used Linnaean ranks, and they are given the benefit of the doubt, despite their use of occasional infrasubspecific names.

It's a subtle thing, but the point is that Voet was using multinomials to refer to species, and that is what violates Article 11.4: it is technically NOT the same thing as simply counting whether a paper includes multinomials.
Authors like Breuning routinely described subspecies, morphs, variants, and aberrations, and some of these took the form of quadrinomials (i.e., Glenea stella medioflava m. stelliformis Breuning, 1956).
The mere existence of trinomials and quadrinomials in a work does not itself violate Article 11.4, what matters is what RANK those names were applied to. If trinomials are applied to subspecies, and quadrinomials to infrasubspecies, then Article 11 is not violated.
Voet's works make no such distinctions of ranks, and therefore fail the test.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
| More
Jump To:
Cerambycoidea Forum © 2000-08 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.07