Another response from Walter Boles from a post in early 2008.
Greg,
The brief description of edwardi was sufficient establish and name a new
species/subspecies. The main thing it had to include was a differential
diagnosis-a comparison to say how it was different from everything else.
Nowadays the Code is somewhat stricter, but this
essential requirement remains as the most important component. The same
requirements apply to the description of subspecies. That Chisholm
named edwardi as a species and Schodde and Mason treated it as a subspecies
were both legitimate actions.
The matter of relative publication dates of the names novaehollandiae and
superba is not resolved. It comes down to a number of small nomenclatural
rules of the type that give taxonomists bad names as obsessive dealers in
minutiae.
Both names were published in the same year, so the resolution depends on the
dates within the year that they appeared. If a publication has only the year
printed on it, and no more specific date can be determined, then under the Code
the publication date is set at 31 December of that year. Thus any rival
publication with any more information would almost certainly predate this and
be valid.
If, however, it can be established that publication with only a year was, in
fact, received by a library or wherever at an earlier time, this then serves as
the new date for comparison. At present, some old copies of both relevant
publications are being dug out of dusty corners in an attempt to resolve the
dates.
The second issue is the matter of unused senior synonyms. The Code allows for
an older name to be set aside if it has not been in use for a specified period
and its reintroduction would replace a well-known name
in common use (upset stability). Schodde and Mason argued for application of
this rule to give precedence to novaehollandiae over superba.
The new edition of the Code makes it harder to apply this rule, and Ian McAllan
has presented examples to show that superba was the conventional usage up to
about the mid-20th century, well within the period that would keep it legal.
An application has been made to the International
Commission of Zoological Nomenclature to make a ruling. Stay tuned.
The Commission moves extremely slowly at times.
Clear as mud?
web
|
