Re: paleonet "palaeo name" to override "neontology name"

From
Date
Reply-To
The question is also about subjectivity. (read the articles on subjective synonymies). That is the real problem about genus level names and type based nomenclature. You will not get an objective synonymy on names based on different types. 

You should probe that recent and fossil species are not monophyletic groups (sister groups indeed) and that at least one of the genera is paraphyletic (ideally both) because of the other. In this case, you can make the statement and establish synonymy. 

If you consider that senior name has been properly proposed and has been properly established in scientific literature then junior synonymy should be not used more. However, IF (my emphasis) under recommendation 23A you consider that junior synonymy should replace the senior one, THEN you should apply to the commission. The commission, once studied the case with all the supporting domumentation,  will consider the case and will take a decision on it. The final decission is made by the commission not you.


__
Dr. Patricio DOMINGUEZ
Dep. Paleontologia. Fac. Ciencias Geologicas. 
Universidad Complutense de Madrid

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Alvaro Mones <amones@adinet.com.uy>
Fecha: Viernes, Abril 28, 2006 11:32 am
Asunto: Re: paleonet "palaeo name" to override "neontology name"

> Yes, Andrew is right; and I strongly support his arguments. If 
> neozoologists 
> ignore paleozoology is their problem and they are doing bad science.
> Alvaro
> 
> *******************************
> Alvaro Mones
> Franzensbadstr. 7 B
> D-86199 Augsburg
> Deutschland
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andy Rindsberg" <arindsberg@gsa.state.al.us>
> To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, 27 April, 2006 15:40
> Subject: RE: paleonet "palaeo name" to override "neontology name"
> 
> 
> Ken and others,
> 
> >The name attached to fossil species is Hemithyrsites Sauvage 1873 
> (used a
> few times by a few authors even up to this year), and the generic name
> attached to the only known Recent species is Promethichtys Gill 
> 1893. This
> is used often enough by enough different authors in the most 
> recent years to
> fulfil ICZN art. 23.9.1.2. However, because of the occasional 
> usage of
> Hemithyrsites, art. 23.9.1.1 is not fulfilled, and thus this 
> senior synonym
> should be applied, except if my co-author and I decide to appeal 
> to ICZN
> recommendation 23A (as suggested in this thread by Patricio). But 
> whether we
> do that or not depends on our judgement.
> 
> As the Preamble to the ICZN makes clear, the purpose of all these 
> rules is
> to promote stability in nomenclature. If I understand you, both 
> were named
> correctly and described well enough for you to be reasonably sure 
> that the
> two are synonyms, despite the fact that one is fossil and the 
> other a living
> species.
> 
> So, why not let the rule of priority apply in the ordinary manner? 
> This is
> the simpler solution. It requires the least work by specialists. 
> It promotes
> stability. And, stepping beyond the bounds of strict logic, the 
> case is more
> interesting as a fossil fish that trumps a living one.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrew
> 
> Andrew K. Rindsberg
> Geological Survey of Alabama
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.0/325 - Release Date: 
> 4/26/2006
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>