 Reference Base  Request for the suppression of Didermocerus Brookes, 1828... |
|
Boylan, P.J.; Green, M., 1974. Request for the suppression of Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 (3): 135-139
|
|
|
|
| |
| Location: |
World |
| Subject: |
Taxonomy |
| Species: |
Sumatran Rhino |
 |
|
Second application to suppress Didermocerus. In 1967, one of us expressed concern that the names Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 and Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 were both in current use for a genus of rhinoceros (Boylan 1967, Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc. 36 : 115-125). At the same time the Commission was requested to determine the matter, and towards this end three different alternative sets of proposals were submitted (Boylan, 1967 Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 24 : 55-56). Subsequently, there have been both official and private comments on the alternatives outlined in the original application, and a survey of the recent usage of the two alternative names has been made.
Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 and Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 are objective synonyms because they share the same type-species by monotypy, Rhinoceros sumatrensis Fischer, 1814 (Zoogn. 3 : 301).
Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 was published in a sales catalogue (A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological museumof Joshua Brookes Part One, London: 76 pp) and appears on page 75 as Lot 16 of the rhinoceros specimens, seven of which are labelled Didermocerus sumatrensis. The sale catalogue fulfill the conditions laid down in Article 8 of the Code and is therefore an available
publication for purposes of zoological nomenclature. One other name, Acinonyx Brookes, 1828 - the generic name of the cheetah - has already been placed in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 971, in Opinion 384, published 20th April 1956.
However, the name Didermocerus remained unused until Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951 (Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals, 1758-1846 resurrected it. Simpson, (1945, Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 85) noted the priority of Didermocerus but rejected the name because it was unused and that as it had appeared in a sale catalogue it had not been properly published. On the other hand Simpson did use Acinonyx (Tom. cit: 120): an inconsistency that was noted by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott. Clearly Didermocerus cannot reasonably be rejected on the grounds that the Brookes' Catalogue is not an available publication when Acinonyx Brookes, 1828 from the same work is accepted.
Since the publication of Ellerman and Morrison-Scott's Checklist, Didermocerus has come into use and since 1951 at least 19 authors have used the name in 28 publications referring to the extant Sumatran rhinoceros and Lord Medway in a letter to the Commission wrote that Didermocerus was in general and widespread use in South and South-East Asia.
On the other hand Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 (Handbuch Naturgesch : 125) is used by nearly all palaeontologists for a number of important fossil species and is also used by many zoologists for the extant Sumatran rhinoceros, Rhinoceros sumatrensis Fischer, 1814. D. A. Hooijer (Bull. 24 : 202) strongly supported the continued use of Dicerorhinus. C. P. Groves (1967, Saugetierk. Mitt. 15 : 222) suggests that sumatrensis should be included in the genus Rhinoceros as it shares many characters in common with Rhinoceros sondaicus Desmarest 1822, but in his comment to the Commission (Bull. 24 :279) he states that he has reverted to the use of Dicerorhinus. So far as we are aware the only use of Didermocerus for a fossil species was by one of us (Boylan, 1967 Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc. op. cit.) but although still convinced of the correctness of this usage under the Code, the form 'Dicerorhinus' has subsequently been preferred in order to avoid confusion in palaeontological literature.
The three proposals between which the Commission was asked to choose in the original application may be summarised as follows: (A) recognise the validity of the Brookes' Catalogue and of Didennocerus and reject Dicerorhinus; (B) reject the Brookes Catalogue and adopt the next available name i.e. Dicerorhinus; or (C) suppress the (valid) generic name Didermocerus by the use of the Commission's plenary powers.
As Sir Terence Morrison-Scott (pers. comm.) has rightly pointed out whichever decision is reached it will clearly be a long time before the preferred usage is fully adopted and the position stabilised. Nor can a decision be reached on the relative merits of the two generic names without considering the significance of the Brookes Catalogue itself. Apart from its importance in respect of Acinonyx, Groves (Bull. 24 : 279) also points out that if the Commission decides not to validate the name Pan Oken, 1816 (Bull. 31 : 29) for the chimpanzee, the next available name is Theranthropus which appears on p. 48 of the Brookes Catalogue.
We are of the opinion that the Brookes Catalogue must be regarded as a valid work, and in Opinion 384 (Acinonyx) the Commission has by implication supported this view. Therefore of the three proposals outlined in the original application (Boylan, 1967, Bull. loc. cit.) proposal B does not seem to us to be acceptable. The remaining courses of action open to the Commission are therefore either to insist on the use of the prior name of Didermocerus (against the prevailing usage particularly in palaeontology where much of the taxonomic research into this particular group is concentrated) or to suppress Didermocerus in favour of Dicerorhinus by use of the plenary powers. A survey of the literature has shown that since 1951 more than 40 authors have used Dicerorhinus in 56 publications.
It should be noted that if the nomen oblitum rule of the present Code had been in existence in 1951 Didermocerus might well have been suppressed by the Commission before the publication of Ellerman and Morrison-Scott's Checklist.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to:
1. Use its plenary powers to suppress the name Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of Law of Homonymy;
2. Place the sale catalogue 'A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological museum of Joshua Brookes Part One' published in London in 1828 on the Official List of Works Approved as available for Zoological Nomenclature;
3. Place the following name on the Oifficial List of Generic Names in Zoology: Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 (gender: masculine), type-species by monotypy Rhinoceros sumatrensis Fischer, 1814;
4. Place the specific name sumatrensis Fischer, 1814 (type-species of Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 5. Place the name Didermocerus Brookes, 1828, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
|
|
|
File available
details
Original text on this topic: