M
Mahon
Guest
I discussed this topic with Guido Braem before writing on here. Personally, I think this subject is a very important one, and should be fixed to correct errors and confusion between taxa. Here is the problem, and I offer a possible treatment.
The incessant use of repetitous specific epithets is an issue that needs to be addressed. When searching for a certain taxon, there are usually synonymous epithets. Sometimes, along with synonymy, we will find another genus that is closely related, and see that the same specific epithet is used (regardless of gender). I will further address and clarify the problem with examples.
When searching for Masdevallia dodsonii Luer (1976), we find that it has been reduced to synonymy in the generic level. We then look for the segregate genera of Masdevallia, we find two genera with the specific epithet of dodsonii; Dracula and Dryadella. Without any knowledge of any of these taxa, which do we choose as the correct accepted epithet? Both genera have been segregated from Masdevallia, and both have the specific epithet of dodsonii. Is it right to assume that all three treatments are the same taxon? No conclusions can really be drawn without studying the type specimen and information for each of these taxa (or is it really taxon?). In fact, Masdevallia dodsonii Luer (1976) has been reduced to synonomy by the author of the species. The correctly accepted nomenclatural name is Dracula dodsonii (Luer) Luer (1978). As for Dryadella dodsonii Luer (1999), it is a seperate and distinct species.
By this example, it is easy to see that taxa (or maybe taxon?) can be confused with each other when closely related. This is just a single example, there are many.
I offer a solution, which must be done in steps. First, I believe that a guideline should be made in order to clarify the use of specific epithets. We already know that a specific epithet cannot be repeated in a single genus, but an addition to this guideline should be added. It should state that 'a specific epithet cannot be repeated in genera that have shared synonymy'.
This means, in the example above, that the specific epithet for Dryadella dodsonii Luer (1999) would (and should) be changed in accordance with the new guideline to keep order within classification. This would also simplify searching for a certain taxon, without questioning other similar genera with the same epithets.
I would like to hear all input on this idea and these problems. If it is needed, I will post another example of confusing specific epithets.
-P.A. Mahon
The incessant use of repetitous specific epithets is an issue that needs to be addressed. When searching for a certain taxon, there are usually synonymous epithets. Sometimes, along with synonymy, we will find another genus that is closely related, and see that the same specific epithet is used (regardless of gender). I will further address and clarify the problem with examples.
When searching for Masdevallia dodsonii Luer (1976), we find that it has been reduced to synonymy in the generic level. We then look for the segregate genera of Masdevallia, we find two genera with the specific epithet of dodsonii; Dracula and Dryadella. Without any knowledge of any of these taxa, which do we choose as the correct accepted epithet? Both genera have been segregated from Masdevallia, and both have the specific epithet of dodsonii. Is it right to assume that all three treatments are the same taxon? No conclusions can really be drawn without studying the type specimen and information for each of these taxa (or is it really taxon?). In fact, Masdevallia dodsonii Luer (1976) has been reduced to synonomy by the author of the species. The correctly accepted nomenclatural name is Dracula dodsonii (Luer) Luer (1978). As for Dryadella dodsonii Luer (1999), it is a seperate and distinct species.
By this example, it is easy to see that taxa (or maybe taxon?) can be confused with each other when closely related. This is just a single example, there are many.
I offer a solution, which must be done in steps. First, I believe that a guideline should be made in order to clarify the use of specific epithets. We already know that a specific epithet cannot be repeated in a single genus, but an addition to this guideline should be added. It should state that 'a specific epithet cannot be repeated in genera that have shared synonymy'.
This means, in the example above, that the specific epithet for Dryadella dodsonii Luer (1999) would (and should) be changed in accordance with the new guideline to keep order within classification. This would also simplify searching for a certain taxon, without questioning other similar genera with the same epithets.
I would like to hear all input on this idea and these problems. If it is needed, I will post another example of confusing specific epithets.
-P.A. Mahon