Minor nomenclature questions

Empis-it seems to be a pusher. But this is more likely to apply to the entire family.

Is this the correct name? There were two options on the Internet: imperial moth and imperial moth. I'm afraid to make a mistake with the name. They differ in that they can sense the female from several kilometers away.

More like a "moth", but (!) you can write it in Russian any way you want, but it's still not clear what kind of insect we are talking about (especially since, as I understand it, this is just a translation from English). It is better to use Latin names.

If we are talking about Eacles imperialis (Google-hello!), then this is a butterfly from the family. Saturniidae, in Russian Peacock eyes. So anyway, not a moth. I would not bother with the Russian name at all, get used to Latin. And feel the female for a few kilometers can not only this species, but many,many others.

Emperor moth in Russian-peacock eye

http://online.multilex.ru/default.asp?arts...tionary=ENRUbio

I think everyone has encountered typos in books. I suggest that in this topic you specify the names of taxa that are doubtful in their spelling.

"Second volume", family Elateridae. The book describes the genus "Dolopius" (page 272). On the Zinovsky site there is a genus "Dalopius". Google knows about both, but there is much more about Dalopius. Is it the same genus or two different ones? If one, which option is still correct? Podskajie.

Correctly: Dalopius Eschscholtz, 1829
And Dolopius is the same genus, but with a typo made by Dejean, 1833.

Shoffer, thank you!

lapsus calami, however...
In all groups it happens.

And again I, and again with the same question :-)

Determinant of insects RAN'ovsky, 2nd volume, Coleoptera: Mycetophagidae.

Lithargus or Litargus? I am inclined to the first option. But Google gives a comparable number of links to both :-(

Lithargus or Litargus? I am inclined to the first option. But Google gives a comparable number of links to both :-(

Correct: Litargus Erichson, 1846.
By the way, Google links to Lithargus gives much less.

Shoffer, thank you! I'll fix it now. Hmm, and with the number of links: I seem to have made a mistake when typing in Google, now I checked again and in fact there are more links to Litargus: -)

And where can I watch this kind of thing on the Internet?

vilgeforce, have you decided not only to digitize the "Second Volume", but also to correct all the errors in it? In this case, it is easier to write it again.
My opinion: if you digitize a book or article, then you need to repeat all the errors and typos present in the original. Otherwise, it's not just a digital version anymore...
In extreme cases, you can attach a page of typos from yourself. By the way, in the" Second Volume " it is already present, although incomplete.

I'm making it up now on the sly, and in order not to manually write the birth numbers in the generic tables, I have a link to the label with the genus name in this table. If later in the view tables of this kind there is no (respectively, and labels), I get a warning. So I notice a certain number of typos :-)
The qualification will definitely not allow you to write again in the foreseeable future. So far, I just figure it out and edit every little thing: -)

I have a link to a placemark with the genus name in this table. If later in the view tables of this kind there is no (respectively, and labels), I get a warning.

How complicated everything is. I hope this approach pays off.

The qualification will definitely not allow you to write again in the foreseeable future.

To be honest, I don't think I suggested it to you.

So far, I just figure it out and edit every little thing.

So your text will still be different from the original?

It's not difficult, just define the necessary commands once and then use them as much as you want :- ) The text yes, will be different: I rule out such typos, there were obvious typos somewhere in the text...

Dear colleagues,
due to the fact that the section "zoology" is not available on the forum, and among zoologists, experts in nomenclature are most often found among entomologists, I took the liberty of writing here.

For a certain genus, there is a valid name A and a junior synonym B. Then this genus is reasonably and irrevocably divided into two. Of course, for the one of the two genera that contains the type species, the name A is retained. Is it possible to use the name B for the second kind? Please back up your answer with the appropriate code text, if possible.

Thank you in advance.

And the view that was specified as a type for B, where does it go?

Initially, the type view is the same for A and B. After the division of genera, a new type species is designated for B.

The question is not easy, but I think there are two points here. It is clear that it is impossible to use the original name of B (with the original author), because this contradicts the principle of typification. This means that we are talking about using the junior homonym B under its own authorship, which contradicts the principle of homonymy and, as far as I understand, does not fall under the exceptions (Article 23.9).

You're probably right. This means that this is possible only with the participation of the commission.
Thank you.

As I understand it, the task is to change the type form for the generic name B. This is not possible under the code, since designations of a type type are subject to the principle of priority, and if the type type has already been designated (and, at the same time, selected and fixed according to all the rules), then "any subsequent fixation is invalid" (Article 70.2 of the ICZN). So only in the commission, although in this case, as it seems to me, there is no such need.

Dear colleagues,
due to the fact that the section "zoology" is not available on the forum, and among zoologists, experts in nomenclature are most often found among entomologists, I took the liberty of writing here.

For a certain genus, there is a valid name A and a junior synonym B. Then this genus is reasonably and irrevocably divided into two. Of course, for the one of the two genera that contains the type species, the name A is retained. Is it possible to use the name B for the second kind? Please back up your answer with the appropriate code text, if possible.

Thank you in advance.

I don't see any difficulties! There are only 2 options: 1. " B " is a junior objective synonym - the name B is objectively invalid and it is never used again.
2. " B " is a subjective junior synonym . Use it with your type species if you consider it a separate taxon at the generic level.
Good luck!

Of course, there can be no question of a subjective synonym in this case.
Thank you all for your answers.

This post was edited by le lapin - 11.07.2011 23: 23

You're probably right. This means that this is possible only with the participation of the commission.
Thank you.

The Commission will not agree to this: it recently declined to designate Drosophila melanogaster as the type species for Drosophila instead of D. funebris, when it turned out that D. melanogaster should be assigned to a different genus. She is now Sophophora melanogaster.

If what Melittia said is expressed in more accessible language, then the situation described is possible if first there were two separate genera A and B, and then the type species of the genus B was reduced to synonyms to the type species of the genus A, after which the type species of the genus B was restored in a separate genus during the mentioned revision. If A and B were assigned the same type species in the original descriptions, then you can't just assign a new type species to B.

Of course, there can be no question of a subjective synonym in this case.
Thank you all for your answers.

Why can't it? I may be deeply mistaken, but my reasoning is...
1. Objective synonyms are considered to be names of the same rank that have the same nomenclature type.
2. Subjective synonyms are considered to be different names of the same rank if their nomenclatural types are not identical, but are assigned to the same taxon.
3. All junior synonyms, regardless of their objectivity, remain valid and are taken into account after the classification is changed, i.e. they can become valid.
Reasonably different taxa of the genus rank cannot have the same type taxon of the species rank, because the physical nomenclatural type of a species is a specific type specimen. If you have divided species into different genera (groups of instances), then a new type must be set from the remaining group that does not include the nomenclature type of the original genus. Some kind of " A. sp. Author1, year1", described earlier than others in this group, is designated by the secondary binomial "B. sp. (Author1, year1) [A]" and its type instance will be considered the nomenclature type for the new genus B. Authorship will be retained only if title B was published as a synonym before 1961 (art. 11.6, 50.7). Otherwise, since nothing else is provided, the authorship may have to be attributed to a new author and the secondary binomial will take the form " B. sp. (Lapin Le., 2011) [A]" ...
The rules for naming when changing a binomial are described in Article 51.3, 22. A. 3..
The ICZN prescribes (Article 6.1 – Recommendation 6A) to indicate the gender of the primary binomial in square brackets.
For this case, subjective synonyms are a better case than objective ones, but not necessarily, because "in the rank nomenclature, synonyms can refer to taxa of completely different volumes" [Kluge].
That is, you have a clear case of subjective synonymy and the synonym B becomes valid for the remaining genus "not A", even if the type species B is included in the new volume A.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

for Tentator
"If A and B were assigned the same type species in the original descriptions, then you can't just assign a new type species to B."

We have expressed opposite opinions on this issue, so I will look for articles in the code.

So far, I think so. If there are two original descriptions and the names are different, they probably came from different sources. In addition, the original descriptions may have been missing features that were used to separate the genus or species in the future. That is, the fact that A and B were assigned to the same species after the introduction of a new feature is no longer relevant, since the original description is not complete in the new sense, i.e. in the new sense it refers to a supraspecific entity. If there are no standard instances for which the authors made the first descriptions of A and B, then it is impossible to prove that the two names belong to the same type.

The practice of using names also matters, and you need to know the situation from the inside out.

This post was edited by Seneka - 01.09.2011 21: 09

I see my topic was unexpectedly continued

I wrote that there is no question of subjective synonyms, because both generic names were given in different works by the same author in the same (1880) year, indicating the same species (at that time it was the only one in this taxon). You see, he didn't like the first name, because it was similar to one of the already used ones. The second name, despite its obvious invalidity, stuck.

I see my topic was unexpectedly continued

I wrote that there is no question of subjective synonyms, because both generic names were given in different works by the same author in the same (1880) year, indicating the same species (at that time it was the only one in this taxon). You see, he didn't like the first name, because it was similar to one of the already used ones. The second name, despite its obvious invalidity, stuck.

Find out the date of publication of the first taxon (before the day, if possible), all other taxa of the generic level "with the same species" as the type for this first genus will always be junior synonyms!

Dear lepidopterologists,
Tell me, please, valid Latin names for urticaria and BPH. Someone else's I'm not thinking straight...

Dear lepidopterologists,
Tell me, please, valid Latin names for urticaria and BPH. Someone else's I'm not thinking straight...

Aglais urticae (Linnaeus, 1758)
Inachis io (Linnaeus, 1758)
I'm not a lepidopterist, though

This post was edited by Dmitrich - 25.01.2012 15: 28

Thanks for the reply. Judging by the number of people who viewed it but didn't write it, this point of view is generally accepted. I was somewhat confused by the Catalog of Lepidoptera of Russia, 2008 (Nymphalis).

Nymphalis urticae (Linnaeus, 1758)
Nymphalis io (Linnaeus, 1758)

Hello!
We really need an English translation of some types of weevils with official confirmation-a link to a printed source.

The five-language dictionary of Striganov B. R., Zakharov A. A., 2000 I have, but there are many English names missing.

Suggest another book. Or maybe I'll just write the Russian and Latin names, and you can translate them into English.

  
The five-language dictionary of Striganov B. R., Zakharov A. A., 2000 I have, but there are many English names missing.

Are there many weevils with Russian names?

Well, they picked on it and okay. What can you do to help?

For example, how to say Cherry Elephant ( Rhynchites auratus Scope) weakly in English? With a link to the source. Google is excluded.

Or can we just swear?

 
For example, how to say Cherry Elephant ( Rhynchites auratus Scope) weakly in English?

cherry weevil

Here's something. English-Russian Biological Dictionary, 1976