Talk:Pan-Alcidae

Birdy222 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Is junior synonym

If Mancalli"n"ae are moved outside Alcidae, "Pan-Alcidae" preoccupied by superfamily Alcoidea Stejneger, 1885 (as "Alcoideae")[1]. The fact that one is phylogenetic nomenclature and the other not is irrelevant, as synonymy occurs whenever two nomina pertain to the same taxon. Alcoidea is delimited as "anything closer to Alca than to Larus and (implicitly) Stercoraria", meaning they have has excactly the same taxonomic content. In fact, Mancallidae were initially considered a distinct family:

Examination of this new material reveals such positive modification of the distal portion of the bone as to make it necessary to recognize the family Mancallidae if we are to harmonize the taxonomy of fossil birds with that of Recent ornithology.

[...] Characters of the elbow joint add greatly to the impression of extreme specialization toward a penguin type of flipper. The broader affinities lie with the Alcidae, but the extreme specialization warrants recognition of the family Mancallidae.

(Lucas, 1946)

which is just another way to say:

[...]previous phylogenetic analyses [i.e. analyses regarding autapomorphies] place Mancallinae as the sister taxon to all other Alcidae.
(Smith, 2011)

Since we follow the ICZN within its scope (upto superfamily), the consequence is obvious: "Pan-Alcidae" is another nomen for the same taxon as Alcoidea, and the junior synonym must be abandoned. Caveat: "Alcoidea" may be a nomen oblitum (Google Books attests it was used up to the 1950s). However, it is in use by Fauna Europaea, which is generally considered a valid taxonomic source by Wikipedia. Source for the FE entry is Cees Rooselaar, who is generally a reliable authority. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

--The fact that Pan-Alcidae was named under the phylocode is definitely not irrelevant here. ICZN rules do not govern the phylocode and the phylocode rules have no bearing on ICZN. The phylocode does suggest that ICZN recognized taxon names be used to name clades when appropriate in order to maintain consistency between the different nomenclatural systems. However, the phylocode does not require conformity to ICZN. Therefore, Pan-Alcidae is perfectly valid under the phylocode and ICZN is irrelevant in this case. Besides, the addition of the "Pan" prefix has a previous history of usage in this context and resurrecting Alcoidea would only cause confusion.Birder444 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC) It is the phylocode that introduces confusion because now some authors deliberately mix it with ICZN practices (the latter especially when dealing with genera and species, and especially new genera and new species). In a context of the family group, the ICZN regulates the names, and a prefix like Pan- makes a name unavailable, hence invalid. Valid famili-group names will always be available to accommodate the same contents (example, Alcoidea Leach, 1820 following the above suggestion).Birdy222 (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The above is all original research. Unless there is a source stating that Pan-alcidae and Alcoidea are synonyms, we are not allowed to infer that they are. AFAIK nobody has even given any kind of definition to the term Alcoidea so it would not be possible to say they are synonyms in any meaningful way. It is not logically possible to synonymize a term with no definition. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Since we follow the ICZN within its scope (upto superfamily)" This is a valid concern as there are bound to be conflicts between the two codes. In the interest in neutrality, once the PhyloCode is implemented (rumor has it later this year or early 2015), the best solution would seem to be have two sections in the taxobox: ICZN (Zoocode) classification and ICPN (PhyloCode) classification. This would be a job for whoever works on the taxobox template to add a second classification parameter. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As emphasized in Louchart et al. (2013 Zootaxa 3750 (2): 197-200), everyone using the phylocode (like Smith et al. with Pan-Alcidae for example) should make it explicit that he/she stands outside the ICZN rules. It becomes, for instance, absolutely unclear when it comes to genera and species. If these authors are consistent, they are outside the ICZN Code also with their new species. But they did not make it clear in the articles concerned, presumably because they feared their new species would not be valid, and almost nobody considers valid new species names outside the ICZN Code. Phylocodists usually play on the two grounds at the same time, by maintaining the ambiguity as to whether they use one Code for some (higher taxa) - the Phylocode, another Code for some (lower) taxa - the ICZN Code. Ambiguity and confusion is also generated by the widespread use under the Phylocode of names from the ICZN Code : what is called "converted clade names". Using a name like Alcidae and derivatives while excluding the ICZN Code is the main reason why confusion is so pregnant in cases where these phylocodists systematics exist and parallel "traditional" ICZN-compliant systematics. The (future?) coexistence of two parallel but mutually exclusive and hermetic nomenclatures would certainly be a source of confusion and conflict. But at present the situation is even worse, because these two nomenclatures are not differentiable in most cases for readers. One solution would be to use different police or small caps or whatever, and consistently, for Phylocode names, to differentiate them from ICZN names (as far as zoology is concerned). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdy222 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC) This is not the case, but should be a role for journal editors.

" It becomes, for instance, absolutely unclear when it comes to genera and species. If these authors are consistent, they are outside the ICZN Code also with their new species." The PhyloCode explicitly does not deal with species and leaves them to the ICZN. Not sure if Louchart et al. have actually read it? Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The initial (and only coherent) plan of phylocodists was indeed to integrate species, but it appeared more and more unfeasible to almost everybody. In addition, many (if not most) species (and below) are paraphyletic for evolutionary reasons. The phylocode recognizes only holophyletic taxa (clades) and this adds another incompatibility. So indeed they have abandoned the idea (for now) as it seems, despite the fact that "leaving" species to the ICZN is not the advice of all phylocodists (and for instance Smith considers his new species as valid under the Phylocode, not the ICZN Code). But anyway, "leaving" species to the ICZN now raises the problem of the non-miscibility of the ICZN Code and the Phylocode, because it would imply for phylocodists that a nomenclature down to "genera" (or unranked equivalent) coexists with the ICZN Code for species (and below: subspecies etc.). It is not possible for theoretical reasons at least, because the ICZN Code is ostensional whereas the Phylocode is either intensional or extensional. From wherever you take the problem, the two codes can not coexist. So really phylocodists must choose, and if they choose the Phylocode, they cannot "leave" species.Birdy222 (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what all of this has to do with the Wikiepdia article Pan-Alcidae... If there is a source that says Pan-Alcidae specifically is not valid because the PhyloCode and ICZN do not coexist, cite it and move on. If not, just leave the article as is. It is not the role of an encyclopedia to synthesize or attempt to harmonize scientific disagreements or incompatibilities by arguing one side or another on a talk page. You yourself stated that the ICZN and ICPN are not compatible. So it is logically impossible to synonymize a name proposed under one (Pan-Alcidae) with a name proposed under the other (Alcoidea). Alcoidea could very well have a separate page covering whatever taxonomic concept ICZN-users use it to mean, if any of them actually use it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All these comments find their place perfectly here, and it is legitimate to discuss ambiguity or validity of scientific names. The two systems are at best parallel, and should not be mixed. (between parentheses: there is a source that says all that, and it is cited; it does not diminish the legitimacy of discussion and explanation of the underlyong issues). The huge difference is that one system ("Linnaean", partly [only, which is a problem] regulated by the ICZN Code) is overwhelmingly used by all users, and is the official one. The other ("Phylogenetic", not yet regulated by the PhyloCode - but good luck among proponents of different kinds of definitions, specifiers etc !) is extremely minoritary. So making available in parallel the two systems would add confusion and is not legitimate. And I reiterate that the confusion arising if due to the practice by phylocodists of parasiting existing (and valid) ICZN names, what they call "converted clade names". The minimal requirement as highlighted above, is to signal whether a name is a phylocode name, using a special police or anything typologically sound. It is a concrete suggestion, which adds to the utility of these comments.Birdy222 (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

We already have an unambiguous way of signaling which code a name is part of. If it's in ICZN, it will be preceded by a rank "Subfamily Alcinae". If it's in ICPN, it's preceded by clade like "clade Alcinae". Pan-Alcidae is a valid name used by some researchers and is not a junior synonym of any other name. Therefore there is nothing to be done with this page. Saying that another valid source disagrees with the entire concept of phylogenetic nomenclature is not a mandate to eliminate that form of nomenclature from Wikipedia, which would be picking sides and original synthesis. Alcoidea is a superfamily under the ICZN. Therefore make a different article for it. If somebody ever converts this to a clade name, we can have both "Alcoidea" and Alcoidea (clade) as with any other disambiguation situation. As for converted clade names causing confusion, may Phylocodists have noted that using suffixes like -idae that are linked to ICZN is bad practice. But those are the only ones that can be considered to cause confusion. Any names above the superfamily rank are not governed by the ICZN but will be covered by the ICPN, so only -idae, -inae, -ini etc. names will be effected. Names above superfamily are considered converted but not from ICZN, since ICZN does not touch them. Names like Aves are converted from no code to a code. Unless the ICZN ever starts governing ranks above the family group, there can never be a conflict. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The « unambiguous » use of « clade A » (ICPN) or « family A » or whatever (ICZN) is actually totally insufficient, because in publications and everywhere it is not mandatory to add the rank or the term “clade” before a name. Especially (ICZN) for the family-series where the mention of the rank is not necessary precisely because in this series the ending suffices to identify it ! In addition, ICZN users have the “right” to call eg, a subfamily Alcinae, the “clade Alcinae” in the text of a paper for instance, just to indicate that he/she is in a “monophyly” (holophyly) context, as are 99% or more of ICZN systematists (no need of PN for that). So I reiterate the absolute need for an unambiguous typology/police to differentiate the two nomenclatural systems. Concerning the higher taxa (above superfamily), the availability of names is regulated, but not their allocation and validation. Of course it is an urgent necessity to implement the Code for complete covering. “Converting” class-series “linnaean” names (which are ranked) to ICPN names is not really a conversion from “no-code” to “a code”, also because the ICPN is not a Code in any official standard; it might start in 2015 (?) with publication of a volume using the present-day ICPN Pre-code. In between, the ambiguity remains (as acknowledge above) for family-series names of the ICZN “converted” by phylocodists. But I add that ambiguity remains also for genus-series names, and also (with some phylocodist authors at least) for species names. For instance, the new “pan-alcid” species described by Smith (2011, Zookeys) were named excluding the ICZN, and in the frame of the Phylocode (in its “extensive” meaning encompassing species levels). So for these new species (even with the term “species”) the ambiguity is so high that nobody knows with any mention of their names is which code they belong. In addition, a legitimate question is whether these species names are indeed valid by ICZN rules and principles (see talk in section Mancallinae). All this, again, raises the question of how to better indicate the relevant system of a name in Wikipedia. Currently, some names (family-series for instance) are presented only as “clade A” even if they were previously a ICZN family name for instance, and authorship confuses all as well: see the example of the Mancallinae.Birdy222 (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)