Symphysodon comprises five species

[Willem Heijns]

Just a few questions to see if I understand all this correctly.

In summary the development of the Code with respect to our issue is:

until 1931: species group names starting with an upper-case letter (after a personal name) were allowed;
1931 - 1985 said names are no longer allowed and are to be treated as incorrect spellings
as of 1985: species group names starting with an upper case letter are not available, according to the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature (art. 5.1).

This sequence of events would make tarzoo (Lyons 1959) an available name, providing other provisions of the Code have been followed.

1. Was the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature included in the Code that was current at the time (1959) and how was it formulated?
2. If I were to publish the name Australoheros Schindleri HEIJNS 2011 (note the upper-case letter!) would that name be available?
3. Do you know of a species group name (starting with an upper-case letter) published after 1961 that was accepted as available?
4. Can an available name become unavailable because of changes in the Code after its publication?

Rico states that all we need to look at is the current (4th) edition of the Code. Article 12.1 says that names published before 1931 can only be available when they fulfil the requirements of Article 11 (with Art. 11.4 pointing to Art. 5.1 and the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature). Would that affect the availability of those older species group names starting with an upper-case letter?

[cichla]

1. Was the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature included in the Code that was current at the time (1959) and how was it formulated?
2. If I were to publish the name Australoheros Schindleri HEIJNS 2011 (note the upper-case letter!) would that name be available?
3. Do you know of a species group name (starting with an upper-case letter) published after 1961 that was accepted as available?
4. Can an available name become unavailable because of changes in the Code after its publication?

1.Yes. For instance Art. 2 of the 'old code' <1945 (see Richter 1943). Apistogramma trifasciatum harald schultzi Meinken 1960 is also available even it has
four words. It was later just corrected to haraldschultzi.
2.Yes, if the publication fulfill the rules of Chapter 4 of the code (means Art. 10-20). But the species epithet needs to be corrected.
3.Cobitis Calderoni Bacescu 1962 (I take this example from Kottelat 1997. I am sure that there are more).
4.No - So far I know.

[Rico Morgenstern]

Thank you, Ingo, for the examples!
I am not aware that a changed provision of the code has ever made a previously available name unavailable. The effective dates given in certain articles serve the purpose to prevent such cases.
I think, a name once available can normally be made unavailable only by a ruling the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Such cases must be rare, though, and in the few instances I could find in the "Official List and Indexes", only names of higher categories are concerned. However, it is theoretically possible that a name loses his availability under Article 10.7 or when it was established in a work later suppressed by the Commission, e. g. the species long known as Distichodus niloticus (Hasselquist, 1762) had to be renamed in Distichodus nefasch (Bonaterre, 1788) because Hasselquist's work was rejected by the Commission.

until 1931: species group names starting with an upper-case letter (after a personal name) were allowed;
1931 - 1985 said names are no longer allowed and are to be treated as incorrect spellings
as of 1985: species group names starting with an upper case letter are not available, according to the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature (art. 5.1).

In fact, it was only allowed to write species group names with an initial upper-case letter only between 1905 and 1931. This did not only apply to names established in that period, but also to those proposed previously (compare, e.g., Regan 1905), and it was always facultative.

And again, this has nothing to do with the availability, neither before nor after 1985. Ingo is right, if you describe a new species as Australoheros Schindleri, the name is available in the form Australoheros schindleri. However, provided the peer-review system would really work, the name would not happen to be published in the incorrect form.

[Willem Heijns]

Article 11: To be available a name must satisfy the following provisions:
Article 11.4: The author must have consistently applied the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature (article 5.1)
Article 5.1: The generic name must begin with an upper-case letter and the specific name must begin with a lower-case letter.

From these provisons in the current Code I can only conclude that the name Australoheros Schindleri HEIJNS 2011 is not available, because it violates article 5.1.

Can you please explain to me why this should not be the case and on which articles in the Code you have based your opinion?

[Mark Smith]

Might it be assumed that such a trivial error (capitalized species name) would be understood by all that it was in fact a trivial error, and that such a capitalized species name would thence forth not be capitalized in any and all future publications? Would an erratum published shortly thereafter to correct such a trivial error help? 5.1 doesn't directly say that such a name would immediately be invalid, does it? Or, does it imply that it would be?

[cichla]

Well, the following is just my opinion, but I am currently convinced that it correlates with the spirit of the code. Art. 11.4. says only that an author need to follow the Binominal Nomenclature. Art. 5.1. is not part of the chapter 4 (Criteria of availability) and thus it explains just how it should be. But the use of lower- or upper-case letter is – I think - not a requirement for the availability of a taxon name. What would you say, Willem, if someone describe a new species using capital letters only?

The code (as almost every law) is not perfect (otherwise we wouldn't need a commission). See for example the famous case of Lophocebus kipunji. A new monkey described in 2005 based on photographs only. There was a heavy discussion even in the major league scientific journal 'Nature' conducted by leading taxonomists whether the taxon is available or not. Both factions used the very same code to support their views. The one group use the code to demonstrate that it is not available, the other group (later the ''winner'' team) used the very same articles to give a proof that it is.

[cichla]

5.1 doesn't directly say that such a name would immediately be invalid, does it?

Yes, Mark, this is what I think so too. Art. 5.1. does not imply that a capitalized species name is unavailable.

BTW: The scientific journal which published the description of the monkey was ''Science'' not ''Nature'', sorry.

[Rico Morgenstern]

Article 11: To be available a name must satisfy the following provisions:
Article 11.4: The author must have consistently applied the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature (article 5.1)
Article 5.1: The generic name must begin with an upper-case letter and the specific name must begin with a lower-case letter.

From these provisons in the current Code I can only conclude that the name Australoheros Schindleri HEIJNS 2011 is not available, because it violates article 5.1.

Well, Willem, if these Articles are interpreted detached from the rest of the Code, your conclusion is certainly comprehensible. However, as the provisions are interdependent and therefore often cross-referenced, we should look at the entire Code, and should not attach more importance to some articles than to others relevant to a certain problem.

Can you please explain to me why this should not be the case and on which articles in the Code you have based your opinion?

Article 5.1 and 5.2 respectively, Article 19.2, Article 28 (cross-referenced from 5.1 and 5.2), Article 32.2.2, Article 32.4, Article 32.5 and Article 32.5.2.5.

Furthermore, in the preamble of the Code we can read:

Precision and consistency in the use of terms are essential to a code of nomenclature. The meanings given to terms used in this Code are those shown in the Glossary. Both this Preamble and the Glossary are integral parts of the Code's provisions.

and in the glossary:

Principle of Binominal Nomenclature, n.
The principle that the scientific name of a species, and not of a taxon at any other rank, is a
combination of two names (a binomen, q.v.); the use of a trinomen (q.v.) for the name of a
subspecies and of uninominal names for taxa above the species group is in accord with the
Principle. See Articles 5, 11.4.

That means, it is questionable, if the use of upper and lower case letters is at all part of the definition of the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature. Be that as it may, in my view it is not possible to declare a species-group name as unavailable on the ground that it was originally proposed with an initial upper-case letter.

[Willem Heijns]

Thanks Rico, for this convincing reply. I'll make the necessary adjustments in my second article on the subject. In order to document my opinion could you send me the wordings (quote, PDF?) of the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature as they were in the "Règles", 1st Edition and/or 2nd Edition of the Code? That would be great.

[Rico Morgenstern]

Done

[Willem Heijns]

Thanks very much Rico. An interesting read it was.

So to sum this all up:

The "Strickland Code" allowed the use of capitals for species group names dedicated to persons (in edition 2 as of 1865).

The "Règles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique" also allowed it (1905-1931). After 1931 it was prohibited. Interesting note: there is no provision in the "Règles" on how to deal with incorrect spellings (rejection and/or correction).

The Code (editions 1 (1961) and 2 (1964)) also prohibited it, adding the statement that incorrect spellings are not available names (art. 19) that have to be corrected (art. 17.6 and 32.c).

The Code (editions 3 (1985) and 4 (2000)) included the same provision for the initial letters in the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature (art 5), leading to the confusion, not only with me but also in scientific circles (hence the proposal to remove it again from the Principle in upcoming edition 5).

[cichla]

Names derived from names of persons may be written with capital letter even after 1931 (see Art. 13 of the ''old code'').

[cichla]

Since we pass the tarzoo challenge , we might focus on other controversy things. Like the 'true' type locality of Symphysodon aequifasciatus haraldi Schultz, 1960.

Although the type locality of Symphysodon aequifasciatus haraldi Schultz, 1960 (USNM 00179829) was reported as Benjamin Constant, this is highly doubtful based on several lines of evidence and material discussed in Bleher and Géry, leading Bleher and Géry to propose Lake Berurí of the lower Purus River system as the correct type locality for Schultz's type. If Schultz's type (USNM 00179829) really originated from Lake Berurí in the lower Purus River system, the revisions of Ready et al. and Bleher et al. can be viewed as largely non-contradictory; however, ultimately the true type locality of Schultz's type is unknowable at this point in time.

Any idea?

[Rico Morgenstern]

Provided the knowledge of the life colors of Discus throughout their natural range is comprehensive and the life colors of the holotype are known, it would certainly be reasonable to assign it to a certain population and hence to restrict the type locality. Burgess (1981) indicates that the fish figured alive on page 32 is the holotype, it is the same photo as fig. 12b in Bleher & a.l (2007). If this is really the holotype, than we can concur with the conclusion that it is from the lower Purus area (though it is not evident to me from Bleher & al. why they restrict the type locality to Lake Berurí). If not, than there is no possibility to assign the holotype to a certain species or population, and Symphysodon aequifasciata haraldi would have to be regarded a nomen dubium. As long as there are not more species accepted than the three recognized by Ready & al. (2006) and Bleher & al. (2007), this is of minor importance, for in this case the question was simply if S. haraldi is a junior synonym of S. aequifasciatus or of S. tarzoo.

Be that as it may, there is, however, a definite error regarding the type locality of Symphysodon discus. For some reason I have hesitated to post this here (you know why, Willem and Ingo!), but for the sake of completeness it should no longer be withheld. Bleher & al. have spent considerable effort to locate 'Moreré' and came to the conclusion, that it is in fact a former mission station named 'Moreira' at the river of the same name, also spelt 'Moreyra'. While they provide no evidence of 'Moreré' being another variant spelling, there can be no doubt that this place did really exist and that have they located it correctly, as it was already mentioned by Alexander von Humboldt. Also, it is reasonable to assume that Symphysodon discus lives there in suitable habitats. However, there is one important fact they have overlooked: "Moreré am Rio-negro" as given by Heckel (1840: 333) is not a locality but the vernacular name recorded by Natterer at the Rio Negro for this species. This is evident from the table at page 443 of Heckel's work, where "Moreré" is given only in the middle column with the heading "Provinzial-Name" (an obsolete German expression for vernacular name), whereas in the column for the occurrences of the species merely "Rio-negro" is given. It is also obvious from a comparision with all other descriptions, where the vernacular name, if recorded, is always given immedially below the heading of each species account, followed by the river or place where the name was recorded. In the last paragraph of the description of S. discus (p. 334) we can read: "Im Leben bietet diese ebenso ausgezeichnete als seltene, bei Barra do Rio-negro im Flusse selbst vorkommende Art, ein sehr reizendes Farbenkleid dar" ("In life, this distinctive as well as rare species, occurring at Barra do Rio Negro in the river itself, displays a very attractive coloration" [my translation, italics in the original]). That means that the Rio Negro near Manaus (formerly Barra do Rio Negro) is the correct type locality.

[cichla]

Thanks, Rico, for pointing out that the type locality in the paper by Bleher et al is not correct.
By the way the paper by Amado, Farias & Hrbek is now available as an edited version here
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/360654/
Greetings, Ingo

[cichla]

According to Wilkins (2006) the ''Evolutionary significant unit'' is a synonyms (in part) of the ''evolutionary species concept''. So I wonder how can Amado et al (2011) used both terms ''Evolutionary significant unit'' and ''Species'' as equivalent concepts in there classification. I think there are only two possibilities (1) to treat all (five) units as species, or (2) to treat all as ''Evolutionary significant units'' means as a sole species.
What do you think?
Greetings, IS

[cichla]

The story continues...
--
Hrbek, Amado and Farias (2011): Evolutionary significant units and species of Amazonian Discus fishes (Symphysodon, Cichlidae) and their classification. DCG- Informationen, Sonderheft 7: 2-48.

Abstract
Starting in 2006, four major publications on taxonomy, systematics and classification of species of Symphysodon have been published. Several potentially new species have been identified, and scientific names for these entities have been proposed. To synthesize this knowledge, we review the concept of a species, the evidence presented by different authors for the existence of the different species, and finally the classification of the different species.
--

It is a bilingual contribution (German, English) and an important step to a robust classification of the taxonomy and nomenclature of theSymphysodon species; written by the leading experts of Amazonian fish systematics.

Greetings, IS

[Willem Heijns]

And the next chapter has also been written (on (part of) the classfication). It appeared in Cichlidae (Journ. NVC) 37 (5): 23-28.

In the near future English (Cichlid News) and German (DATZ) versions will be published. A brief preview:

Green Discus: The valid scientific name for the Green Discus is Symphysodon tarzoo Lyons 1959 with neotype INPA 25960, type locality Rio Jutai (Ready et al., 2006).

Blue Discus: The Blue Discus is Symphysodon haraldi Schultz 1960 with holotype USNM 179829, type locality (most likely incorrect) Benjamin Constant.

Brown Discus: For the Brown Discus the valid scientific name is Symphysodon aequifasciatus Pellegrin 1904 with lectotype MNHN 1902-130, type locality Santarém (Ready et al., 2006).

Whether the Blue and Brown Discus should be united into one species is a matter of debate. If that were to happen the valid scientific name would be Symphysodon haraldi.

[cichla]

And the next chapter has also been written (on (part of) the classfication). It appeared in Cichlidae (Journ. NVC) 37 (5): 23-28.

Thanks, Willem. Good to know.

Whether the Blue and Brown Discus should be united into one species is a matter of debate. If that were to happen the valid scientific name would be Symphysodon haraldi.

Symphysodon aequifasciatus Pellegrin 1904 is the older than Symphysodon haraldi ... I think the valid scientific name would be Symphysodon aequifasciatus.

[Willem Heijns]