Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:56:32 -0500
Reply-To: Conchologists List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender: Conchologists List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "Harry G. Lee" <shells@HGLEE.COM>
Subject: Re: Junior primary homonym
For those few who might feel left in a lurch after my posting below,
I have a bit of an epilogue. Dick Petit did a search at OBIS, an
on-line database, and dug up some nomenclatorial history. Regrettably
I could not duplicate the search on a recent attempt.
It seems that Tomlin (1936) noticed the homonymy between Turbo
pulcher Wood, 1828 [actually this usage is of Dillwyn, 1817] and
Turbo pulcher Reeve, 1842. Complying with the contemporary mandate of
the ICZN, he provided a replacement name for the Reeve taxon, a
synonym from the literature, Turbo intercostalis Menke, 1843. The
species is an Australian endemic.
Not all modern authors adhere to this action. Wilson and Gillette
(1971) and Wilson (1993) persist in the use of T. pulcher (in the
latter publication even to the point of citing T. intercostalis as a
junior synonym), but Cernohorsky (1978), Wells and Bryce (1985)
follow Tomlin and employ T. intercostalis.
As noted below, it appears that Kreipl, Kreipl, and Poppe (2003) were
unaware of this problematic homonymy. Does anyone know of the mention
of either name in other modern works?
Kreipl, A., K. Kreipl, and G. T. Poppe, 2003. The family Turbinidae
subfamily Turbininae, genus Turbo. A Conchological Iconography
Conchbooks, Hackenheim, Germany. pp. 1-68 + plates 1-95.
Tomlin, J.R. le B., 1936. Notes from the British Museum. VII. Turbo
intercostalis Menke. Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 22: 137-138.
At 07:54 PM 11/25/2006, I wrote:
>With assistance from Tom Watter's prodigious new monograph, I came
>across and instance of a pair of primary homonyms today
>Turbo pulcher Wood, 1828 [now known as Megannularia pulchra (Wood,
>1828) a terrestrial prosobranch in the Annulariidae from Jamaica].
>This family-level placement was accomplished within a few years of
>the original description.
>Turbo pulcher Reeve, 1842 [name still the same - a marine turbinid].
>It appears that Kreipl, Kreipl, and Poppe (2003) were unaware of this homonymy.
>Both nominal taxa are in fairly wide usage nowadays. What to do?
>Article 23.9.5 of the current (1999; 4th edition) of The Code
>states: When an author discovers that a species-group name in use is
>a junior primary homonym [Art. 53.3] of another species-group name
>also in use, but the names apply to taxa not considered congeneric
>after 1899, the author must not automatically replace the junior
>homonym; the case should be referred to the Commission for a ruling
>under the plenary power and meanwhile prevailing usage of both names
>is to be maintained.
>Now, I can understand placing a damper on a
>nomenclatorially-destabilizing acts such as declaring Turbo pulcher
>Reeve, 1842 unavailable is an important measure (although such
>replacement appears to have been mandatory until Jan. 1, 2000 under
>The Code). However, my limited experience with the ICZN indicates a
>certain reluctance for action on matters of this level of perceived import.
>Perhaps the Commission has already ruled on this matter, but I can
>find no evidence thereof. Are we in a Catch 22?
>Have I missed something here?
Harry G. Lee, M. D.
4132 Ortega Forest Dr.
Jacksonville, FL 32210 USA
voice (904) 389 4049
look at www.jaxshells.org