taxonomy of the zebra shark

[bmathison1972]

This paper came out in 2019, suggesting that Forster's name Stegostoma tigrinum should have priority over S. fasciatum:

https://bioone.org/journals/copeia/volume-107/issue-3/CG-18-115/The-Sandy-Zebra-Shark--A-New-Color-Morph-of/10.1643/CG-18-115.full

I looked over it and don't see a reason not to accept it, unless I am missing something ( @Halichoeres - I am curious on your take). Wikipedia accepts this change already, but surprisingly WoRMS does not, and the latter is usually on top of name changes.

[Gwangi]

Interesting, I guess I should probably edit my reviews of the species.

[bmathison1972]

Interesting, I guess I should probably edit my reviews of the species.

@Gwangi - if need be, I will edit the tags. I can edit them behind the scenes and will affect them for all posts (unless you can do that and want to - not sure how the rights of an editor differ from those of a poster).

[Gwangi]

Interesting, I guess I should probably edit my reviews of the species.

@Gwangi - if need be, I will edit the tags. I can edit them behind the scenes and will affect them for all posts (unless you can do that and want to - not sure how the rights of an editor differ from those of a poster).

Be my guest. 

[Isidro]

Please notice that this thread is not about taxonomy of the zebra shark, but about nomenclature of the zebra shark. Taxonomy and nomenclature are often confused because the first affect the second, but they are two completely different things.

There is a thing in the Zoological Nomenclatural Code that is a protected scientific name (nomen protectum), applied when an animal have been known very widely with a binomial for long time, and when recently there is a discovery of an older scientific name that was almost non used, the well known name stays as the valid one despite being younger.  The classic example of this is the clouded sulphur butterfly, so common in Europe, Colias crocea, that have the previous but unused name of Colias edusa, thus Colias crocea is a nomen protectum and is the valid scientific name of this species. I think that something similar happen with the maguari stork, that according to priority should be called Ciconia galeata instead Ciconia maguari. I think the case of Stegostoma fasciatum is applicable.

Notice also that, if we had to follow the principle of priority and forget the nomen protectum concept, according to the article linked above the valid scientific name of the zebra shark should be Stegostoma varium, from a basionym (Squalus varius) published nothing less than in 1759 with a valid description associated. So there is no reason for accept Stegostoma tigrinum.

[bmathison1972]

Interesting, I guess I should probably edit my reviews of the species.

@Gwangi - if need be, I will edit the tags. I can edit them behind the scenes and will affect them for all posts (unless you can do that and want to - not sure how the rights of an editor differ from those of a poster).

Be my guest. 

Done