Flag for Taxon: Snoek (Leionura atun)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| clinton | Snoek (Leionura atun) |
The name change from Thyrsites to Leionura is not valid. |
May. 11, 2022 08:26:31 +0000 | loarie |
see comments |
Comments
Can you contact Richard van der Laan (richard.vanderlaan80 at gmail dot com) at COF and see if they'll work on changing COF?
In the meantime do you want to deviate?
Is that just reshuffling Snoek from Leionura sensu COF to Thyrsites sensu COF or something more complex?
I'll see if Doug is happy for me to pass his comments on to Richard.
By deviate I assume you mean deviate from COF? The opinion of ichthyologists here seems to be in agreement with Doug, i.e. the change from Thyrsites to Leionura by COF is invalid.
yes deviate from CoF
Ok. Its more complex than Thyrsites sensu COF. I suggest you get @markmcg and @amandahay on the case.
I don't feel I am qualified to comment. I like using Thyrsites. :) I'll run the entire conversation past Doug.
After some discussion, Doug's final reply was as follows.
As I mentioned Fricke is adamant in retaining Leionura. Technically he appears to be correct, in that Lesson Thyrsites predate Cuvier’s, which means Thyrsites would replace Thyrsitoides. The problem is that it all goes against current usage and Nakamura and other argued that Whitley got it wrong, but it isn’t clear why they thought he was wrong. It is possible that the Lesson name could have been formally rejected, but that would take some digging into the literature, so will retain Thyrsites for atun at present.
so you want to deviate from COF by swapping Leionura atun -> Thyrsites atun ?
Yes please. :)
Thank you @loarie. Have you seen my email asking a question about Places?
@markmcg thanks for direct messaging me about places.
RE: Thyrsites atun, Catalog of Fishes still considers it Leionura atun
https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?spid=19808
would you mind emailing Fricke Ronald at Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes at ronfricke@web.de
to see if they'll make the change on their end and report back here? many thanks
Will do @loarie. :)
I contacted Ron Fricke who replied, "Our position concerning Leionura atun and Synchiropus rameus has not changed, so we keep these two names as valid for the time being."
great thanks for reaching out - And just to be clear, we should keep deviating?
Yes, I believe the deviations are warranted. Thank you @loarie. :)
While I initially agreed with the reasoning for this name change in the Catalog of Fishes, Doug Hoese has this to say about it:
"This is a bit of a messy one. As pointed out by others there are generally two genera recognised, Thyrsites and Thyrsitops. As Whitley pointed out Lesson’s Thyrsites was the same as Gill’s Thrysitops, proposed for Cuvier’s Thyrsites lepidopodea, which happens to be the same as Lesson’s lepidopodea. However the new code requires that a name in wide usage not be displaced if the older name was not in use after 1899. I haven’t checked, but literature suggests that Lesson’s Thyrsites was probably not in use and the catalogue is not a valid publication under the code and the change was proposed after 2000. The relevant section of the code is:
An author will be required (without a ruling by the Commission) not to displace a name which has been used as valid by at least 10 authors in 25 publications during the past 50 years, and encompassing a span of not less than ten years, by an earlier synonym or homonym which has not been used as valid since 1899.
Consequently any attempt to change the name now is not acceptable under the code unless one can show that Thyrsites of Lesson was in usage after 1899 and before 2000.
Given that atun is a commercial species, the change proposed by the catalogue would not be welcomed. ITIS and Catalogue of life do not use Leionura and given all the literature on the group, use of that name would probably be unwise."