BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mb1848" data-source="post: 4049301" data-attributes="member: 31036">I was always impressed by Dubois’s names for nomina dubia: nomina dubia (aporionyms): nomenclatural (anaptonyms, synaptonyms) or taxonomic (nyctonyms); – mere citations (chresonymsI did find distagmonyms (Dubois 2005b‒c), are nomina which have not had a large usage since 1900.I have emailed M. Dubois to ask if he could coin a term for the situation here for Andrornis 1877 Kaup in Roeder a current valid synonym or homonym so is a potential nomina oblita but where younger subgenus Periparus fulfills the conditions for a reversal of precedence and the author is, not well liked like Rafinesque or Kaup???I am sure he sees me and all of us as AltaVista taxonomists but perhaps he will respond. In: Ohler, A. & Dubois, A. (2018) Article 23.9 of the Code cannot be used to reject the nomen Hyla quoyi Bory de SaintVincent, 1828 as a nomen oblitum. Zoosystema, 40 (6): 109‒121 and Dubois, A. & Ohler, A. (2018) The Hyla quoyi-Hyla prasina case (Amphibia, Anura), with comments on bibliographic and taxonomic databases and on Article 23.9 of the Code. Zoosystema, 40 (23): 501‒506. the authors say it is unfortunate that, when implementing this new Rule, the Commission, instead of coining a new term, decided to ‘recycle’ the formula ‘nomen oblitum’, which had been used in the Code between 6 November 1961 and 1 January 1973, but in a different sense (see Article 23.12), and then removed from the Code. In particular, in this previous use this formula could apply to any nomen, whether senior or junior homonym or synonym, whereas in the new sense this formula can be used only to invalidate a senior unused synonym or homonym of a well-known nomen, but not to ‘suppress’ a nomen, just because it is ‘old’ and ‘forgotten’, but which then does not threaten any other valid nomen. Some recent authors did not realise this distinction and used the formula in its previous sense, not in its current one. Such a mistake is just an avatar of a more general one, which consists in believing that nomina considered once as subjective synonyms are forever expelled from zoological nomenclature—a misunderstanding which is at the source of many nomenclatural errors.“No attack intended on my side.”  I did intend but not Mr. Jobling.  I understood his use as an informal short hand.  But since I am intellectually lazy I need to set up Straw Women or strawpersons to attack to motivate me to place weird bird names in a search engines.</blockquote>

Verification