Copepoda note details

Bowman (1988) argued that, following ICZN (3rd edition) arts. 11(b)(v), 33(c) and 79(c), Nitocra is an incorrect subsequent spelling, and Nitokra cannot be suppresed as an unused senior synonym, and therefore, the "commonly" used spelling Nitocra should be replaced by the original spelling Nitokra. Some years later, Mielke (1993) suggested that the spelling Nitocra should prevail since "apart from rare exceptions only the name Nitocra has been used since" the description of Nitokra mihi by Boeck (1865). Mielke (1993) suggested to follow Bowman's second choice, "to supress Nitokra and validate Nitocra, in accordance with usage". Some "principal changes" introduced in the 4th edition of the ICZN appear in pages XXVI-XXIX. Change number 12 says "In most cases an author will be required to maintain the particular spelling in prevailing use for a name, even if it is found not to be the original spelling;..."). Also, art 33.3. and 33.3.1. say: "Any subsequent spelling of a name different from the correct original spelling, other than a mandatory change or an emendation, is an "incorrect subsequent spelling"; it is not an available name and, like an incorrect original spelling [Art. 32.4], it does not enter into homonymy and cannot be used as a substitute name, but when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling." The same reasoning was used by Wells (2007:88) who says "Bowman (1988) recognised that the name of this common and speciose genus has been misspelt—as Nitocra— since 1881 and argued that the original spelling (Nitokra) should be resumed. Mielke (1993) disagreed, believing the name that had been in common use for so long should prevail. At that time Mielke’s view would have required a ruling from the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature but to the best of my knowledge a case was not submitted. However, the situation is now resolved—in favour of Nitocra—by the adoption in Article 33 of the 4th Edition of the ICZN, 1999, of a new section 33.3.1. which allows “an incorrect subsequent spelling” to stand when it is in “prevailing usage” and has always been properly attributed to the original author." Gómez, Carrasco & Morales-Serna, 2012 followed Mielke (1993), Wells (2007) but above all, the ICZN (1999) arts. 33.3 and 33.3.1. In the opinion of Samuel Gomez, the spelling Nitokra should be replaced by Nitocra.
Not documented
2018-07-23 12:36:13Z