Discussione:Diplovertebron punctatum
Translation from English page
[modifica wikitesto]I apologize for writing this in English. Although I can read Italian (helped a lot by my knowledge of Latin), I do not speak or write it.
Although it is not stated anywhere, this article obviously is a translation of the English page on the subject. Until recently, that page had an error in it which was copied into the Italian page. The English page read (in the last paragraph of 'History'): "Hemichthys problematica, a supposed fish skull described in 1895, was later found to be an anthracosaur skull. Klembara et al. (2014) petitioned for a redescription of Hemichthys, which they regarded as a nomen oblitum." The current Italian version reads: "Hemichthys problematica, un cranio di pesce descritto nel 1895, fu in seguito riconosciuto come un cranio di antracosauro. Klembara e colleghi (2014) hanno presentato una petizione per una ridescrizione di Hemichthys, che consideravano nomen oblitum." First remark: it was not 'un cranio di pesce'; it was supposed to be one, but erroneously so.
The thing is that Klembara et al. never petitioned for a redescription. They considered Hemichthys a senior synonym of Gephyrostegus. But the name Gephyrostegus had been in current use for over one hundred years already, while Hemichthys had been treated as the valid name for a taxon only once, in its protologue of 1895. So Klembara et al. declared Hemichthys problematica a nomen oblitum and at the same time Gephyrostegus bohemicus a nomen protectum, all in order to be able to keep using the name Gephyrostegus. The text in the 2014 paper reads:
«Regardless of its determinability, Hemichthys problematica has not been claimed as a valid definable taxon since 1895, when it was named. In the fourth edition of the International Code on Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999: 28), Rule 23.9.1 states that “prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met: 23.9.1.1 the senior synonym ... has not been used as a valid name after 1899 and 23.9.1.2 when ... the junior synonym ... has been used for a taxon as a presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.” Gephyrostegus bohemicus is the prevailing usage and has been extensively used by many authors since 1902 and particularly since 1970. Consequently, Hemichthys problematica is a nomen oblitum even though it is a senior synonym of G. bohemicus.»
The current English text reads: "Hemichthys problematica, a supposed fish skull described in 1895, was later found to be an anthracosaur skull. Klembara et al. (2014: 776) treated Diplovertebron as a valid genus and argued that the Hemichthys skull fossil was actually referable to Gephyrostegus. Though the name Hemichthys was published earlier, it has not been considered a valid taxon since its original description, so it is treated as a nomen oblitum according to ICZN Art. 23.9.1." --Wikiklaas (msg) 22:51, 2 nov 2023 (CET)