| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Dear Ken, One possible example may be the case with goblin sharks. The fossil form (genus Scapanorhynchus) was described by A. S. Woodward in 1889, and later the modern form (genus Mitsukurina) was described by D. S. Jordan in 1898. Some workers have suggested that Mitsukurina is a junior synonym of Scapanorhynchus (e.g., see p. 182-183 at http://www.jstor.org/view/00030147/di005724/00p0209r/0). Although the debate over their systematic relationship still continues and both generic names are used equally to date (including my own papers), I have not found any satisfactory features that would decisively separate the two taxa at the generic level. I hate to see the genus Mitsukurina getting sink into Scapanorhynchus because I am so used to the name (and, in part, because, as a Japanese, I want to preserve the Japanese-based scientific name), but in reality, the "Recent name" MAY need to be put to disuse in favor of the "fossil name." Hope this helps. Jordan, D. S. 1898. Description of a species of fish (Mitsukurina owstoni) from Japan, the type of a distinct family of lamnoid sharks. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (Zool.), Ser. 3 1(6):199-202. Woodward, A. S. 1889. Catalogue of the fossil fishes in the British Museum (Natural History), London. 474 pp. Best, Kenshu _________________________________ Kenshu Shimada, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Environmental Science Program and Department of Biological Sciences DePaul University 2325 N. Clifton Avenue Chicago, IL 60614, USA AND Research Associate in Paleontology Sternberg Museum of Natural History Fort Hays State University Hays, KS 67601, USA http://gis.depaul.edu/envirsci/Administrative/ShimadaResearch.htm http://gis.depaul.edu/envirsci/Administrative/ShimadaPictures.htm -----Original Message----- From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk [mailto:paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Kenneth A. Monsch Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:57 AM To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk Subject: paleonet "palaeo name" to override "neontology name" Dear all, My co-author and I are investigating the following case. The name of a certain genus of fossil fishes seems to apply as well to Recent species that are generally known under a different generic name. The particularity of this case is, that the "Recent" name is a junior synonym of the "fossil" name. The "Recent" name is frequently used and the "fossil" name rarely. However, of both necessary ICZN conditions for maintaining a frequently used junior synonym as valid rather than its more obscure senior synonym, only one is met. If you want to verify what these conditions are, look up ICZN (1999: arts. 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2). Thus, what we want to assert in a taxonomic note that is in prep. is the following. A "Recent" name should be put to disuse in favour of a name that has been used only for fossils till now! I am not aware of it if something like this has happened before. That is why I'd like to ask if anyone out there on the list knows of previously published reports of similar cases. Thanks in advance, Ken ******************************************** Dr. Kenneth A. Monsch Department of Vertebrate Zoology Institute of Zoology University of Wrocław ul. H. Sienkiewicza 21 tel +48-71-3754017 50-335 Wroclaw fax +48-71-3222817 POLAND kmonsch@biol.uni.wroc.pl
Partial index: