l_raty
laurent raty
I can sympathize with Rick's point of view, but... I don't really think it would be mainstream to read Art. 11 that way. I am in any case unaware of any name introduced in a work applying binominal nomenclature that, in modern times, would have been deemed unavailable based on it being grammatically formed in a way that would make it unacceptable.
The easiest interpretation of "sinesciuris" may be that, when written as a single word, it is indeed "barbarous" -- in the original sense of the word, i.e., not Latin; as a non-Latin word, it is simply not concerned by Art. 11.9.1.1-4. It might also be noted that the Code, actually, doesn't say a word about about what being "treated as" a noun may well imply or require. At its introduction, sinesciuris was combined with a generic name (a noun in the nominative) without being made to agree with it in gender or number, and this two-word combination was used to denote a unique entity; as such, it might in fact be argued that it was indeed "treated as" a noun in apposition in the nominative in the OD.
(For a not-too-dissimilar case that tends to pop up recurrently on some taxonomic discussion groups: the Code says --
There is, actually, a snail named Cycladamsia rudisplanusque (Chitty 1857) (originally written with a hyphen "C[yclotus] rudis-planusque" [OD], but the hyphen is to be removed and the words united as per 32.5.2.3, which makes the correct original spelling "rudisplanusque"). This name is regarded as available. It is treated as invariable (not "rudisplanaque" despite the current combination with a feminine generic name) -- i.e., "as a noun", despite it could only reasonably be parsed as two adjectives and a conjunction.)
There are also some technical weaknesses in the proposal, I believe. In particular:
The easiest interpretation of "sinesciuris" may be that, when written as a single word, it is indeed "barbarous" -- in the original sense of the word, i.e., not Latin; as a non-Latin word, it is simply not concerned by Art. 11.9.1.1-4. It might also be noted that the Code, actually, doesn't say a word about about what being "treated as" a noun may well imply or require. At its introduction, sinesciuris was combined with a generic name (a noun in the nominative) without being made to agree with it in gender or number, and this two-word combination was used to denote a unique entity; as such, it might in fact be argued that it was indeed "treated as" a noun in apposition in the nominative in the OD.
(For a not-too-dissimilar case that tends to pop up recurrently on some taxonomic discussion groups: the Code says --
...but it is widely accepted that this is not to be understood as extending to names that would have a conjunction embedded in them, while being written as a single word; such names do not "consist of words", and as such fall outside of the scope of 11.9.4; no attempt should be made to parse such names into their subcomponents. See, e.g., [this comment] (by an ICZN Commissioner).11.9.4. A species-group name must not consist of words related by a conjunction nor include a sign that cannot be spelled out in the Latin alphabet (see Article 11.2; for the use of the hyphen, see Article 32.5.2.4.3).
Examples. Expressions like "rudis planusque" (in which "-que" is a conjunction) and "?-album" are not admissible as species-group names.
There is, actually, a snail named Cycladamsia rudisplanusque (Chitty 1857) (originally written with a hyphen "C[yclotus] rudis-planusque" [OD], but the hyphen is to be removed and the words united as per 32.5.2.3, which makes the correct original spelling "rudisplanusque"). This name is regarded as available. It is treated as invariable (not "rudisplanaque" despite the current combination with a feminine generic name) -- i.e., "as a noun", despite it could only reasonably be parsed as two adjectives and a conjunction.)
There are also some technical weaknesses in the proposal, I believe. In particular:
- It's not fully clear to me that Art. 16.1 is really satisfied. This says: "Every new name published after 1999, including new replacement names (nomina nova), must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new." (Emphasis mine.) The word "new" (or an equivalent of it) is nowhere used to qualify the name in the proposal. There is no question that it is (very) strongly implied, but this is not what the article is asking for. (There is an express statement that the publication of the note is intended to be "a nomenclatural act", but a nomenclatural act is "a published act which affects the nomenclatural status (q.v.) of a scientific name or the typification of a nominal taxon" (Glossary). The establishment of a new name would of course be a nomenclatural act, but the presence of a nomenclatural act does not mean the establishment of any new name. This statement alone cannot be viewed as meeting the requirement of 16.1.)
- There appears to be some creeping confusion between "validity" (or "potential validity" ?) and "availability" in the proposal (which unfortunately is a rather frequent issue, even in the writings of some very experienced taxonomists), with problematic consequences.
If a name fails to satisfy Art. 11, that does not make it "invalid": that makes it unavailable, i.e., a name that has completely failed to start to exist nomenclaturally. A species can only be "renamed" if it is already named (= already has an available name attached to it); if not, it must be described as new. This does not appear to be what was intended in the case of Loxia sciurinimica, however; and, even with good will, interpreting the intent as having been this cannot be done, because the note does not fulfil the requirements for a new species description after 1999. (No explicit fixation of type in the OD. A description of the new species is also entirely lacking, but a bibliographic reference to a previously published work that includes such a description is present (even if not clearly offered to serve that purpose), and this might be seen as sufficient (cf. 13.1.2). The type fixation, on the contrary, must be "in the original publication" as per 16.4, it cannot be made by reference. And it is not there.) From the moment that Loxia sciurinimica cannot be understood as the name of a newly described species, it can only be available as a nomen novum (new replacement name) proposed to replace the name sinesciuris... The problem is: nomina nova take their availability from that of the name they replace; they can not be proposed to replace a name that is not itself already available.
IOW, if sinesciuris is really excluded by Art. 11.4, then sciurinimica is automatically unavailable as well.
Last edited: