[tcs-lc] Misspelled Names and Orthographic Variants (Issue 005)

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Apr 29 14:37:00 PDT 2005


> I didn't expect quite so much by way of real examples! I was thinking
> more of one or two names that illustrated your point.

So was I!!!  I originally only wanted to send the genus "Asterropteryx" and
the species "semipunctata", and the two alternate spellings thereof.  But
then I figured I ought to provide you with an example of a subspecies and a
synonym, just to see how v0.95.2 would deal with them.  Then I thought I'd
provide a couple of type species...and that led me down the rabbit hole that
produced such a convoluted mess.

But here's the thing:  I think you could probably pick almost any random set
of names that have been around for a while, and discover a mushrooming
complexity once you identified the types and other nomenclaturally important
aspects of he history.

> I have cut and paste your examples onto the LinneanCoreExampleNames
> page of the LC wiki. I am working through these trying to add
> instance document examples but this is a long and time consuming
> business. I don't think I will be able to illustrate all of them.

O.K., how about just focusing on this subset:

=======================================================
Rüppell (1830) established the new genus "Asterropterix" on p. 138.
In the same publication (same page), he also described the new species,
"Asterropterix semipunctatus".  Because this was the only species Rüppell
included in his new genus, this species is established as the type species
of the genus (monotypy).
In the same publication, he included an illustration of a specimen that now
bears the catalog number SMF 1691, and is the Holotype of his new species A.
semipunctatus.  In the caption for that figure, Rüppell spelled the name
"Asterropteryx semipunctatus" ("-yx" for the genus, instead of "-ix" for the
genus).

Rüppell (1835) listed the same genus and species, but consistently spelled
the genus "Asterropteryx". In doing so, by ICZN rules he serves as the
"first reviser", and thereby establishes the "-yx" spelling of the genus as
the "correct original spelling".  We can only assume that Rüppell's 1935
concept circumscription of the species is congruent to his 1830 concept
circumscription. Because the genus is monotypic in both publications, we can
also assume congruency between the two genus concept circumscriptions.

Bleeker (1874a) established the new genus Brachyeleotris (p. 306). He
designated Eleotris cyanostigma Bleeker (1855) as the type species.

Bleeker (1874b) described the new species ensifera (p. 375), and included it
within his genus Brachyeleotris.

Snyder (1904) placed the species Eleotris cyanostigma Bleeker (1855) within
the genus "Asterropterix" (incorrect spelling).

Whitley (1932) described the new subspecies, "Asterropterix semipunctatus
quisqualis" (incorrect spelling of genus).

Dor (1984) regarded Eleotris cyanostigma Bleeker (1855) to be a junior
synonym of Asterropteryx semipunctatus Rüppell (1830).
In doing so, he (by definition) also considered the genus Brachyeleotris
Bleeker (1874a) to be a junior synonym of Asterropteryx Rüppell (1830).

Randall et al. (1997) placed Brachyeleotris ensifera Bleeker (1874b) in the
genus "Asterropteryx" (correct spelling), and spelled the species epithet
"ensiferus".

Privitera (2001) published on the reproductive biology of Asterropteryx
semipunctatus Rüppell, but pointed out that the genus "Asterropteryx" is
feminine, and thus spelled A. semipunctatus as "Asterropteryx semipunctata".

Nakabo (2002) also recognized the feminine gender of Asterropteryx, and
followed Dor in placing Brachyeleotris ensifera Bleeker (1874b) in
Asterropteryx, and thus spelled it "Asterropteryx ensifera".

Allen & Adrim (2003) also placed Brachyeleotris ensifera Bleeker (1874b) in
the genus Asterropteryx, but spelled the species epithet "ensifer".

Randall et al. (2004) used the spelling "Asterropteryx ensiferus".

Greenfield & Randall (2004) mistakenly used the spelling "Asterropterix
semipunctatus" in their treatment of that species.
=======================================================

This list includes a couple of alternate spellings, a couple of synonyms
(both genus and species), and a subspecies.  We can safely ignore all the
pre-Rüppell stuff.  Assume that all publications except Privitera (2001)
provided sufficient information to define concept circumscriptions for each
name used (they didn't really -- but let's not go down that rabbit hole just
yet).

> It is perfectly possible to have verbatim strings for names in the new TC
> <Name> element and the ref attribute pointing to a NameObject with a
> different spelling. Have you tried doing it?

O.K., I see now that the "Name" element serves the function of my
"VerbatimNameString" -- sorry for confusing the issue.  But it's not clearly
indicated whether the contents of the <Name> tag should be the "verbatim
name-string as used in the AccordingTo publication", or some sort of
automated concatination of the parsed elements in the linked NameObject.

I also see that Name & authorship are combined into one tag.  It *might* be
preferable to split them up with a VERY simple structure like this:

<Name ref="123">
  <NameSpelling>Aus bus</NameSpelling>
  <NameAuthor>Smith (Jones)</NameAuthor>
</Name>

Separating verbatim name and verbatim authorship will be beneficial in the
long run, I think -- but I wouldn't make it any more complex than this.
Anything more parsed belongs in whatever structure ref="123" points to.

> Bearing this in mind what you say below can be done in the current schema
I believe. Please feel free to have a go!

> You can do something like this if you want to:

[etc.]

...but I thought from your earlier message that "Mygenus" and "Migenus"
would automatically be considered as separate name objects?

Maybe it's only an issue when you're not sure whether "Mygenus" and
"Migenus" are intended to refer to the same Name object.  In that case,
however, I would suggest simply *not providing* any ref value within the
<Name> element of a TC instance, and rely only on the verbatim text string
in the Name tag.  Under what circumstances would you ever need to create a
unique NameObject for "Migenus"?

Aloha,
Rich




More information about the Tcs-lc mailing list