search

SpeciesFileGroup / taxonworks

Workbench for biodiversity informatics.
http://taxonworks.org
MIT License
87 stars 26 forks source link

Combination restored #3344

Open adrik29 opened 1 year ago

adrik29 commented 1 year ago

Feature or enhancement

There is nothing in TW that indicates "Combination restored". And worst -- the comb. rest. appear as a new protonym, which it isn't -- for people who use the "Holy Trinity" protonym/aponym/chresonym this is frustrating.

Look here: EWING 1923 created Holosiro acaroides. NEWELL 1947 combined this species as Siro acaroides by virtue of the synonymy of Holosiro with Siro. KARAMAN 2022 restored the original comb. in the wake of the revalidation of the genus Holosiro.

But TW fails to show this adequately, and the 2nd H. acaroides appears as a new protonym. I suggest the introduction of new relationship saying stg like "combination restored".

image https://sfg.taxonworks.org/tasks/nomenclature/browse?taxon_name_id=321627

Location

Browse nomenclature > origin

Screenshot, napkin sketch of interface, or conceptual description

No response

Your role

curator of project

proceps commented 1 year ago

The browse nomenclature shows the timeline of the name change. I would do exactly what you did, put a second citation on protonym. Protonym, by definition, is original use of the name, ecentially an original combination. I know that protonym is more than that, it does not emphesize the validity or availability of the name, but in case of available name, it could be use as a synonym of original combination. In this sence, the restored combination is a reversal to the original combination or the protonym (well reversal could be some intermediate combination, not necesserally back to protonym). The other point. The labels Protonym and Combination are intended only for simplicity of the navigation and editing of data. They are not displayed in public interfaces or paper catalogues. New combination, or reversal of combination is not a nomenclatural act. It does not need to be published, it is only betters of classification and a history of names. I enter only the first use of a combination in the literature, some projects, like Orthoptera species file, record every single citation and use of the name. The lastly, when providing a list of taxonomical and nomenclatural statuses, we followed ICZN rules as close as possible. Reversal of combination of not part of the ICZN.

adrik29 commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the lesson, Dmitry, and for the attention! Sometimes I don't understand ICZN. I think it is important to mention what was the source that revalidated a combination (original or otherwise) and for me this is not a protonym and it should be somehow marked. In our Opiliones project we are going through LAYERS. So, first we included only the bare valid names, later citations and pages, now the invalid names, but not the chresonyms so far. We plan to include everything eventually. I know that there is a lot of valuable info in the chresonyms, especially geographic records, complements to description, new illustrations, but this is for later (the layer approach that I mentioned). We still have to include repositories of type material, distribution, depictions, etc.