Nomenclature of European plethodontid salamanders:: Speleomantes Dubois, 1984 has precedence over Atylodes Gistel, 1868
Nomenclature of European plethodontid salamanders:: Speleomantes Dubois, 1984 has precedence over Atylodes Gistel, 1868
复制标题
DOI：
10.1163/156853807779799063
复制
发表时间：
2007-01-01
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Crochet, Pierre-Andre
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Crochet, Pierre-Andre
在最近的一篇论文中，Wake等人(2005)发现了Atylodes，一个被长期遗忘的游牧民族(见Dubois，2000)，Gistel于1868年提出了撒丁岛Plethodontidae Speleomantes Genei Temminck和Schlegel属(单型模式种)。因此，Atylodes Gistel，1868是Speleomantes Dubois，1984(模式种Speleomantes italicus Dunn，1923)的一个更老的，早已被遗忘的主观异名，如果两者都用于由所有欧洲Plethodontid火蜥蜴组成的一个分类单元。然而，这一发现的命名后果没有被清楚地暴露出来，也没有被正确地处理，因为当Atylodes和Speleomantes同时指定一个分类单元时，它们没有采取必要的步骤来根据国际动物命名准则(以下简称准则)的要求保护这一命名者。第二十三条。《法典》第1条规定，“当同时满足下列条件时，必须维持普遍使用：23.9。1.1高级同义词(...)在1899和23.9之后没有被用作有效的名称。1.2初级同义词(...)作为其推定的有效名称，在至少25部作品中被用于某一分类群，这些作品由至少10位作者在紧随其后的50年内出版，涵盖的跨度不少于10年“。根据《守则》(第23.9条。2)，提交人发现第23.9条的两个条件。应同时引用两个主名，并明确说明较年轻的主名是有效的，并根据以下规定采取行动
In a recent paper, Wake et al.(2005) unearthed Atylodes, a long forgotten nomen (see Dubois, 2000) proposed by Gistel in 1868 for the genus of the Sardinian Plethodontidae Speleomantes genei Temminck and Schlegel, 1838 (type species by monotypy). Atylodes Gistel, 1868 is thus an older, long forgotten, subjective synonym of Speleomantes Dubois, 1984 (type species Speleomantes italicus Dunn, 1923) if both are used for a taxon made of all European Plethodontid salamanders. The nomenclatural consequences of this discovery are not clearly exposed nor correctly tackled, however, since they fail to take the steps necessary to protect this nomen under the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code hereafter) when Atylodes and Speleomantes are in concurrence to designate a taxon. Article 23.9. 1 of the Code specifies that “prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met: 23.9. 1.1 the senior synonym (...) has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and 23.9. 1.2 the junior synonym (...) 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”. According to the Code (Article 23.9. 2), an author who discovers that both the conditions of Article 23.9. 1 are met should cite the two nomina together and state explicitly that the younger nomen is valid, and that the action is taken in accordance with this