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

Re: Citing combinations with subgenera

An even better example of the problem would be Pteranodon (Longicepia) 
longiceps, let's just forget that (Longicepia) is invalid for the moment. 
Pteranodon longiceps is cited as Marsh, 1876, for both genus and species, but 
(Longicepia) is from Miller, 1972. Or Pteranodon (Longicepia) ingens, Marsh 
named the species in 1872, the combination Pteranodon ingens was first 
established by Marsh in 1876, and Olshevsky first added in (Longicepia) in 
1978. That last example probably illustrates the issue best, the genus-species 
combination is the same as an earlier one, but there is now a subgenus thrown 

Also, what about citing uses of already-named genera as subgenera or vice 
versa, like Nyctosaurus Marsh, 1876 which is used as a subgenus in Miller, 
1972. Should I cite that as (Nyctosaurus) Marsh, 1876 sensu Miller, 1972 (as a 

David Marjanovic wrote:
>> The ICZN states: 'If it is desired to cite both the author of a 
>> species-group nominal taxon and the person who first transferred it to 
>> another genus, the name of the person forming the new combination should 
>> follow the parentheses that enclose the name of the author of the 
>> species-group name'.
>> [...]
>> and Pteranodon (Geosternbergia) sternbergi (Harksen, 1966) Miller, 1978 is 
>> evidently improper.
> But this is exactly what your quote of the ICZN says -- except that that 
> applies to genera rather than subgenera... but maybe you should use it 
> anyway. After all, the species name is due to Harksen, and the name as a 
> whole in that form is due to Miller.
>> Mike Keesey suggested Pteranodon (Geosternbergia) sternbergi Harksen, 1966 
>> per Miller, 1978, but this seems odd to me.
> Among other things because _per_ isn't mentioned in the ICZN. (That also 
> means it can't be wrong, though.)