Taxonomic Swap 146994 (Guardado el 21/09/2024)

Automatically generated change from https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes/146981

desconocido
Añadido por sjl197 el 21 de septiembre de 2024 | Comprometido por sjl197 el 21 de septiembre de 2024
Reemplazado con

Comentarios

I think the name Phycodes should be used. Phykodes is an unnecessary replacement name.

Taxonomic classification
The taxonomic classification of trace fossils parallels the taxonomic classification of organisms under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. In trace fossil nomenclature a Latin binomial name is used, just as in animal and plant taxonomy, with a genus and specific epithet. However, the binomial names are not linked to an organism, but rather just a trace fossil. This is due to the rarity of association between a trace fossil and a specific organism or group of organisms. Trace fossils are therefore included in an ichnotaxon separate from Linnaean taxonomy. When referring to trace fossils, the terms ichnogenus and ichnospecies parallel genus and species respectively.

Publicado por kallies hace alrededor de 13 horas

See ICZN, Chapter 12:
Article 56. Genus-group names,
56.1. Application of the Principle of Homonymy
The Principle of Homonymy applies to all genus-group names, including names of collective groups and of ichnotaxa at the genus-group level [Arts. 1.2, 23.7, 42.2].

Seems clear.
Else, the replacement name Phykodes Rindsberg, 2019 is also adopted in IRMNG, which i find a trustworthy source of genus-level changes https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11923182

Publicado por sjl197 hace alrededor de 12 horas

That sounds pretty clear indeed. Looks like Wikipedia needs to be updated.

But I am pretty sure there was time when trace fossils were considered separately. And it is a bit sad, Phycodes (as the moth) has been used so widely of such a long time. Whereas Phycodes Richter, 1850 is a rather obscure trace in the mud...

Publicado por kallies hace alrededor de 12 horas

Absolutely, I also take the Wikipedia entry as therefore rather misleading. It can be complicated by some fuzzy blur in what is 'taxonomy' when talking about 'classification' and 'nomenclature'. Anyway, ICZN article 1.2 at the start of modern Fourth Edition also mentions inclusion of ichnotaxa, it's been there a fair while. As i'm sure you know, proposals can be made to conserve usage of certain names with goal for stability, but here those "rather obscure trace in the mud" simply have two years longer usage, so there we have it.

Publicado por sjl197 hace alrededor de 12 horas

Agregar un comentario

Acceder o Crear una cuenta para agregar comentarios.