<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; color: rgb(36, 36, 36);">Dear All,</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; color: rgb(36, 36, 36);">Ximo, Andre van Eck and me already had a discussion about it. This is what Ximo said:</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; color: rgb(36, 36, 36);"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; color: rgb(36, 36, 36);">N<i>one of us like Philhelius, but you can trust me when I say there is no better option. To keep Xanthogramma, someone has to
send a proposal to the Commission, and wait 2-4 years until the Commission takes a decision. I have talked with 2 Commissioners and both think that the proposal to keep Xanthogramma will not be accepted because there is no reason (inestability needs to be
proven based on criteria that Xanthogramma does not have). Moreover, we afe trying to avoid another episode like the one in the 90s with Chrysotoxum arcuatum and festivum. Accepting the fact that Philhelius is the valid senior synonym will avoid the confusion
of which name to use in the period from the proposal until the decision is published; 2-4 years where one can use either name creating much more confusion and inestability. Keep using Xanthogramma thinking that the problem will be solved in the future is an
illusion, and the problem willbecome bigger.</i></span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; color: rgb(36, 36, 36);"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; color: rgb(36, 36, 36);">Kind regards,</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof"><span style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; color: rgb(36, 36, 36);">Gerard</span></div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%;">
<div dir="ltr" id="divRplyFwdMsg"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Van:</b> Syrphidae <syrphidae-bounces@lists.nottingham.ac.uk> namens Jeroen van Steenis <j.van.steenis@xmsnet.nl><br>
<b>Verzonden:</b> dinsdag 5 maart 2024 12:41<br>
<b>Aan:</b> bwakkie@syrphidae.com <bwakkie@syrphidae.com><br>
<b>CC:</b> hoverfly discussion list <syrphidae@lists.nottingham.ac.uk><br>
<b>Onderwerp:</b> Re: [Syrphidae] Suppress Philhelius in order to keep using Xanthogramma</span>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Dear Bastiaan</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">You address several problems.</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Systema Dipterorum is not a scientific resource in the sense that it is an official publication organ and not peer-reviewed. The status of names on this website has no value for science. The names are not always officially published
and should not be used by GBIF or anyone else if there is no publication stating the information on SD is correct.</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">The other thing is that "a useful scientific purpose" is arguable as there are several aspects involved like nomenclature, stability, phylogeny etc.</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">The last problem is that, when a name has not been in use for over 100 years it can be disregarded and thus not used. In the case of Philhelius the name was reintroduced by Evenhuis in 2018 with good arguments that it concerns Xanthogramma.
This makes it very hard, if even possible to get Philhelius suppressed.</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">It is best if you write to Neal or any other member of the ICZN to ask if filing this case could be successful or not.</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Good luck.</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Best wishes,</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Jeroen</div>
<br>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Op di 5 mrt 2024 om 11:54 schreef Bastiaan Wakkie <<a href="mailto:bwakkie@syrphidae.com" id="OWA47163a2c-2c08-0576-5d6c-9757649a7cab" class="OWAAutoLink">bwakkie@syrphidae.com</a>>:</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">
<div style="padding-bottom: 1px;">Dear all,<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Has someone (or is interested in) created an IUCN case to suppress Philhelius Stephens, 1841:201 in favour of Xanthogramma Schiner, 1860:215 ?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Evenhuis 2018, created a new synonym for Xanthogramma based on his research on Daniel William Coquillett's work but mentions while creating the synonym that suppression may be warranted in case the synonym would be a threat to stability.</p>
<p>In Dipterists Digest 2018 there is a personal comment of Martin Speight that "replacing the well-established generic name Xanthogramma by<br>
Philhelius Stephens serves no useful scientific purpose and simply introduces confusion"</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The confusion has arrived as GBIF which is using Systema Dipterorum as source, and any website using GBIF data are taking over the synonym. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Time for action?</p>
<p>I am willing to file the case but may need some help in formulating it correctly.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Bastiaan</p>
<p><br>
</p>
sources:<br>
Evenhuis, N. L. (2018). Nomenclatural studies toward a world list of Diptera genus-group names. Part VI: Daniel William Coquillett. Zootaxa, 4381(1), 1-95.<br>
<br>
EDITOR (2018). Corrections and changes to the Diptera Checklist (39). Dipterists Digest, series 2: 25 (1): 79–84.<br>
<br>
<pre><div>--
----
Bastiaan Wakkie
<a href="https://www.syrphidae.com" id="OWA3ebdf5b8-1e7b-d7ff-0bc2-5a1f0f50e6aa" class="OWAAutoLink" data-auth="NotApplicable">https://www.syrphidae.com</a></div></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Syrphidae mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Syrphidae@lists.nottingham.ac.uk" id="OWAe7ad7cb6-92b3-81cf-9a4b-53e5349500b0" class="OWAAutoLink">Syrphidae@lists.nottingham.ac.uk</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae" id="OWA39d92380-e6ac-0a8a-4d25-6cf338815e68" class="OWAAutoLink" data-auth="NotApplicable">https://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/syrphidae</a><br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>