On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 2:18 PM Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben CreislerReplyingÂto David...The term "nomen dubium" is NOT a taxonomic term. It is often used to refer to a situation in which fossil material that was given a name that met the ICZN requirements to be available is later judged to be nondiagnostic or subdiagnostic to a species level for purposes of taxonomy. So in taxonomy, the specimen is "nondiagnostic" or "undiagnostic" and does not represent a diagnosable or definable taxon--if somebody gave it a name, the name is a "nomen dubium." Â
If a paper is retracted, in principle, the information or data that it contained should not be cited and used in technical literature. Â
It is perfectly possible to publish a paper with taxonomic content and only refer to a specimen or specimens using a specimen catalog number. The paper has taxonomic content but not a nomenclatural act. If the paper is retracted, the taxonomic content should not be used. Since there was no nomenclatural act, no ICZN issues arise.
For a name to be available, it needs to be published in conjunction with taxonomic content (a description that is meant to be diagnostic, designation a holotype specimen, and an explicit statement that the taxon is being named (genus, genus and species, species)). (I'll ignore the electronic publication situation for now...)
In the case of the retracted Oculudentavis paper, the original Nature article may be adequate to make the name available under the ICZN, but the paper has become taxonomically unusable because it was retracted (as opposed to simply corrected). Thus the name Oculudentavis can no longer be treated as being associated with a diagnostic taxonomic description, making it another kind of "nomen dubium." This is an unusual situation.Â
We'll see if the authors of the new description of the same taxon decide to use the name Oculudentavis. I think they have the option not to.
====On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 1:22 PM David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:> I've never really heard a concise explanation of the taxonomic naming process, even when I studied paleo in college.
There is no process. Sometime between becoming convinced they've found a new taxon and submitting the manuscript, the authors agree on a name, and that's it. Everybody does this differently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have the tab open, so here's another quote from ICZN glossary:
>>
nomen oblitum (pl. nomina oblita), n.
  A Latin term (meaning "forgotten name") applied after 1 January 2000 to a name, unused since 1899, which as a result of an action taken under Article 23.9.2 does not take precedence over a younger synonym or homonym in prevailing usage; the younger name which takes precedence over the nomen oblitum may be called a nomen protectum (q.v.). The term nomen oblitum was also applied to a disused senior synonym rejected between 6 November 1961 and 1 January 1973 under Article 23b of the Code editions then in force (see Article 23.12.2). Nomina oblita remain available names; see Articles 23.9 and 23.12 for conditions controlling their use as valid names.
nomen protectum, n.
  A Latin term (meaning "protected name") applied to a name which has been given precedence over its unused senior synonym or senior homonym relegated to the status of nomen oblitum (q.v., and see Article 23.9.2).
<<
...and to make really sure, let's check Art. 23.9:
>>
23.9. Reversal of precedence
In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2], its application is moderated as follows:
23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met:
23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and
23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.
<<
Art. 23.9.2 states that if an author discovers that these conditions are all met, they can publish that fact, and then older name becomes a nomen oblitum while the younger one becomes a nomen protectum, without the Commission needing to do anything â although: "In the case of subjective synonymy, whenever the names are not regarded as synonyms the older name may be used as valid."
But Art. 23.9.1.1 says that Art. 23.9.2 can _never_ apply to this case and *Oculudentavis* can _never_ be a nomen oblitum, simply because the original retracted paper has already used the name as valid after 1899. That leaves only Art. 29.9.3:
>>
23.9.3. If the conditions of 23.9.1 are not met but nevertheless an author considers that the use of the older synonym or homonym would threaten stability or universality or cause confusion, and so wishes to maintain use of the younger synonym or homonym, he or she must refer the matter to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power [Art. 81]. While the case is under consideration use of the junior name is to be maintained [Art. 82].
<<
Well, good luck arguing that the use of the name *Oculudentavis* "would threaten stability or universality or cause confusion". I think that would be the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.