Opinion 2027

"Opinion 2027" (engelska) är ett ställningstagande av International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) avseende bevarande av de vetenskapliga namnen för 17 vilda arter där det finns domesticerade varianter med ett annat (tidigare) vetenskapligt namn.^[1] Beslutet togs efter en petition ("Case 3010") med efterföljande diskussion.^[2] Innebörden av detta ställningstagande är att när dessa vilda arter och deras domesticerade varianter betraktas som en art, skall den vilda artens vetenskapliga namn gälla för båda.

Följande 17 namn har i och med detta "konserverats":

Bombyx mandarina - Silkesfjäril
Bos gaurus - Gaur
Bos mutus - Jak
Bos primigenius - Uroxe
Bubalus arnee - Vattenbuffel
Camelus ferus - Kamel
Canis lupus - Varg
Capra aegagrus - Vildget
Carassius gibelio - Silverruda
Cavia aperea - (Brasilianskt marsvin)
Equus africanus - Vildåsna
Equus ferus - Vildhäst
Felis silvestris - Vildkatt
Lama guanicoe - Lama
Mustela putorius - Iller
Ovis orientalis - Mufflonfår
Vicugna vicugna - Vikunja

För dessa 17 arter namngavs den domesticerade varianten först, vilket enligt grundreglerna i nomenklaturen skulle gett detta namn företräde, men detta har orsakat förvirring och åsidosätts alltså av Opinion 2027.

Referenser[redigera | redigera wikitext]

^ ”OPINION 2027 (Case 3010): Usage of 17 specific names based on wild species which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved” (på engelska). the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Volume 60, Part 1. 2003. Arkiverad från originalet den 9 juni 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110609014212/http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/iczn/BZNMar2003opinions.htm. Läst 2 maj 2010. ”Abstract. The Commission has conserved the usage of 17 specific names based on wild species, which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic forms. The majority of wild progenitors and their domestic derivatives share the same name, but in the 17 cases considered (1 Lepidoptera, 1 Osteichthyes and 15 Mammalia) the wild and domestic forms have been separately named and this has created confusion.”.
^ Anthea Gentry, Juliet Clutton-Brock, Colin P. Groves (2002). ”Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals” (på engelska). the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Volume 59, Part 1. Arkiverad från originalet den 12 maj 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110512053244/http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/iczn/BZNMar2002comments.htm#comment3010_59_1. Läst 2 maj 2010. ”However, confusion arises when, in a minority of cases, the two forms are treated as conspecific and the senior name (based on the domestic form) is adopted, or when the forms are treated as separate and the name for the domestic form is then transferred to the wild taxon. Our application seeks to stabilise the current majority usage of the 15 names for wild mammal species, which are the first available names in use based on wild populations.”. Arkiverad 12 maj 2011 hämtat från the Wayback Machine.

Se även[redigera | redigera wikitext]

Conserved name på engelska Wikipedia.

Den här artikeln är helt eller delvis baserad på material från engelskspråkiga Wikipedia, Opinion 2027, 21 april 2010.

[1] ”OPINION 2027 (Case 3010): Usage of 17 specific names based on wild species which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved” (på engelska). the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Volume 60, Part 1. 2003. Arkiverad från originalet den 9 juni 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110609014212/http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/iczn/BZNMar2003opinions.htm. Läst 2 maj 2010. ”Abstract. The Commission has conserved the usage of 17 specific names based on wild species, which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic forms. The majority of wild progenitors and their domestic derivatives share the same name, but in the 17 cases considered (1 Lepidoptera, 1 Osteichthyes and 15 Mammalia) the wild and domestic forms have been separately named and this has created confusion.”.

[2] Anthea Gentry, Juliet Clutton-Brock, Colin P. Groves (2002). ”Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals” (på engelska). the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Volume 59, Part 1. Arkiverad från originalet den 12 maj 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110512053244/http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/iczn/BZNMar2002comments.htm#comment3010_59_1. Läst 2 maj 2010. ”However, confusion arises when, in a minority of cases, the two forms are treated as conspecific and the senior name (based on the domestic form) is adopted, or when the forms are treated as separate and the name for the domestic form is then transferred to the wild taxon. Our application seeks to stabilise the current majority usage of the 15 names for wild mammal species, which are the first available names in use based on wild populations.”. Arkiverad 12 maj 2011 hämtat från the Wayback Machine.

[1]

[2]