Issue 16791
Name parser return the genus for subgenus names with a genus given
16791
Reporter: mdoering
Assignee: mdoering
Type: Bug
Summary: Name parser return the genus for subgenus names with a genus given
Priority: Critical
Resolution: Fixed
Status: Resolved
Created: 2015-01-20 18:00:04.438
Updated: 2015-08-14 10:39:06.923
Resolved: 2015-08-14 10:39:06.84
Description: Discovered by browsing the bee genus Hylaeus:
http://www.gbif.org/species/140786922
All subgenera are called like the genus, for example:
http://api.gbif.org/v1/species/111075218
The canonical name becomes the genus name, not the subgenus.
]]>
Author: mdoering@gbif.org
Created: 2015-01-22 12:50:53.053
Updated: 2015-01-22 12:50:53.053
It seems infrageneric names can be represented with or without the leading genus, so the parser needs to understand both versions. Consulted Rich Pyle for zoological names:
-----
So, there are two answers to the question: Nomenclatural and Taxonomic.
From the nomenclatural perspective, we have in the ICZN Code Article 43.1.
"Statement of the Principle of Coordination applied to genus-group names.",
which says:
"A name established for a taxon at either rank in the genus group is deemed
to have been simultaneously established by the same author for a nominal
taxon at the other rank in the group; both nominal taxa have the same type
species, whether it was fixed originally or subsequently."
This means that when Sullivan et al. established the new subgenus name
"Odontohypopomus", they simultaneously created the genus name
"Odontohypopomus". In other words, you are correct: all names in the Genus
Group (genus and subgenus) must be unique.
So, from a nomenclatural perspective, either one is correct. By convention,
in ZooBank we represent it the way it was originally created. For example,
if the name was first proposed as a subgenus of a different genus, we show
it that way. If it was first proposed as a genus, we show it as a full
genus. However, it would be technically correct to represent it as
"Odontohypopomus Sullivan, Zuanon & Cox Fernandes, 2013" even if first
established as a subgenus, because technically Sullivan et al. also
established the full genus name at the same time.
From the taxonomic perspective, it depends on your taxonomic opinion whether
a name should be treated as a full genus or as a subgenus. In this case, if
you wrote "Odontohypopomus Sullivan, Zuanon & Cox Fernandes, 2013", it would
imply that you regard "Odontohypopomus" as a full genus (i.e., a taxonomic
opinion). So for taxonomic purposes, you should represent it in accordance
with how it was treated.
If you can give me a little more idea on what context you are representing
the text version of the name, I might be able to offer better advice. In
short: If you want to represent it as a name, then you can either go with
"Odontohypopomus Sullivan, Zuanon & Cox Fernandes, 2013" or "Brachyhypopomus
(Odontohypopomus) Sullivan, Zuanon & Cox Fernandes, 2013" (but the latter
only if Odontohypopomus was originally established by Sullivan et al. as a
subgenus within the genus Brachyhypopomus).
Another way to represent it would be something like this: "Odontohypopomus
Sullivan, Zuanon & Cox Fernandes, 2013 (as a subgenus of Brachyhypopomus)"
-- this is similar to what Bill Eschemeyer does for the Catalog of fishes.