[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: New name for Syntarsus

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Williams, Tim wrote:

> > And I would like to say, if for nothing else, that this new name is
> >really ugly, and a lot harder to pronounce than _Syntarsus_. 
> And perhaps unnecessary:
> (1) As Rob mentioned, both _Syntarsus_ species (or at least the type
> species, _S. rhodesiensis_) may actually be referrable to _Coleophysis_.

This has nothing to do with the need for a replacement name for a
currently recognized genus (see ICZN Article 60).  If you read the code,
you see a replacement name is necessary.  
> (2) _Syntarsus_ Fairmaire 1869 would seem to qualify as a _nomen oblitum_ -
> just like _Centrosaurus_ Fitzinger 1843 and _Ceratops_ Rafinesque 1815
> before it.

Wishful thinking without scholarship at best.  A nomen oblitum is
currently, to quote the ICZN glossary, a name not used since 1899.  Do you
know how many times since then Syntarsus Fairmaire 1869 has been used?  I
do. Whose opinon in therefore more informed on the matter?  Fairmaire's 
name has been used numerous times in the last 25 years, and in every
catalog of the family or treatment of Madagascar colydiids sinice it was
proposed.  It is in no way "forgotten" and does not qualify for
suppression because of poor scholarship by the users of the junior

> The journal is "Insecta MuNdi" (sounds like something Fonzi would say).
Hey, its a peer reviewed journal, with reviewers who seem to know the ICZN
better than you do.

Mike Ivie