The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivates

Abstract

Several systems have been devised for the naming of domestic animals but none has gained universal acceptance. Where Latin names of the Linnaean system are used, the majority of wild progenitor species and their domestic derivatives share the same name but in 19 cases there is a tradition of separate names for the wild and domestic forms. Many taxa first described and named by Linnaeus (Systema Naturae, 1758, 1766) and other authors were either based on domestic animals or encompassed both the wild and domestic forms. Among these are 16 mammals for which the name for the domestic form antedates or is contemporary with that of the wild ancestor and the former has been applied by a few authors to the wild species, creating confusion in the literature. A recent ruling (Opinion 2027, March 2003) by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has fixed the first available specific name based on a wild population for 17 wild progenitor species (15 mammals, a fish and a moth). It is now recommended that names based on domestic forms be adopted for the corresponding domestic derivatives.

Full text

The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivatives
Anthea Gentry
a
*, Juliet Clutton-Brock
b
, Colin P. Groves
c
a
Littlewood, Copyhold Lane, Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH17 5EB, UK
b
South Barn, High Street, Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire CB5 8ST, UK
c
School of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
Received 5 June 2003; accepted 15 October 2003
Abstract
Several systems have been devised for the naming of domestic animals but none has gained universal acceptance. Where Latin
names of the Linnaean system are used, the majority of wild progenitor species and their domestic derivatives share the same name
but in 19 cases there is a tradition of separate names for the wild and domestic forms. Many taxa first described and named by
Linnaeus (Systema Naturae, 1758, 1766) and other authors were either based on domestic animals or encompassed both the wild and
domestic forms. Among these are 16 mammals for which the name for the domestic form antedates or is contemporary with that
of the wild ancestor and the former has been applied by a few authors to the wild species, creating confusion in the literature. A
recent ruling (Opinion 2027, March 2003) by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has fixed the first available
specific name based on a wild population for 17 wild progenitor species (15 mammals, a fish and a moth). It is now recommended
that names based on domestic forms be adopted for the corresponding domestic derivatives.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nomenclature; Taxonomy; Mammalia; Osteichthyes; Lepidoptera; Wild progenitor species; Domestic animals
1. Domestication
The first osteological evidence for the domestication
of a wild animal, that of the wolf, is dated to at least
15,000 years ago, and the earliest known domestic food
animals were probably goats and sheep at least 9000
years ago. Domestication of cattle and pigs followed,
and by 7000 years ago these four constituted the main
food items. The horse was the last of the five common
livestock animals to be domesticated [9]. There is evi-
dence that the cultivation of plants began about 10,500
years ago, shortly before the end of the last European
glacial period [31].
A domestic animal, in its most developed form, shows
four main characteristics: (1) its breeding is under
human control; (2) it provides a product or service
useful to humans; (3) it is tame; (4) it has been selected
away from the wild type. Domestication was defined by
Gautier [22] as “a microevolutionary process and a form
of cultural control over animals, implying that these
creatures are forced to live and multiply in captivity; as
a result they acquire domestic traits” (see also various
papers in Clutton-Brock [7] and see [9]). Not all animals
considered to be “domestic” qualify under all the
criteria, and archaeozoologists and anthropologists
have demonstrated many different stages intermediate
between wild species and their domestic derivatives (see,
for example, [71] and references cited in her paper). Van
Gelder [65, p. 151]) also drew a distinction between
modern “domestic” animals (populations that have
come to differ from their ancestral stocks through selec-
tion by humans) and “domesticates” (individuals of
otherwise wild species that are tame and “of the home”).
Recent research has accepted a combination of features
in animal remains, particularly ungulates, at archaeo-
logical sites as indicating the early stages of domesti-
cation: dominance of one species at any one time;
dominance of young adult males; presence of all skeletal
parts of a given species; reduction in size; morphological
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1444-413678
E-mail addresses: alantgentry@aol.com (A. Gentry),
julietcb@btinternet.com (J. Clutton-Brock), colin.groves@anu.edu.au
(C.P. Groves).
Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 645–651
SCIENCE
Journal of
Archaeological
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
SCIENCE
Journal of
Archaeological
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
0305-4403/04/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2003.10.006

change in horn cores; increase in the number of pathol-
ogies; and presence in an archaeological site outside the
natural wild range ([68]; a number of detailed analyses
of Near and Middle Eastern sites using these criteria
appear in the same volume).
Recent genetic analyses have demonstrated that there
are two or more lineages represented in several domestic
animals (including cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goat, pig,
horse, llama and alpaca), derived from two or more wild
ancestral species or subspecies (Hiendleder et al. [35], for
example, on sheep; MacHugh and Bradley [45],on
goats; and Kadwell et al. [37] on the llama and alpaca).
There is also genetic evidence of hybridisation of dom-
estic animals with wild species and other domestic forms
during domestication. Many distinct wild species can
interbreed with normal fertility rates and all domestic
forms retain the genetic ability to breed with the wild
species if that is extant (see, for example, Stains [60] for
dog/wolf; Novoa and Wheeler [52] for llama and alpaca/
guanaco and Morris [50] for ferret/polecat and domestic
cat/wildcat).
2. Naming domestic forms
Domestic animals do not fall into a recognised and
consistent system of taxonomy (see [6,9,23,30]) and
zoologists and archaeozoologists have been discussing
their naming for many years. Many taxa first described
and named by Linnaeus [42,43] and a few other authors
were either based on domestic animals or encompassed
both the wild species and domestic forms. The great
majority of wild species and their domestic derivatives
share the same name (e.g. Oryctolagus cuniculus
(Linnaeus, 1758) for the wild and the domestic rabbit,
Myocastor coypus Molina, 1782 for the wild coypu and
the domestic nutria, Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758
for the mallard and the domestic duck, and Columba
livia Gmelin, 1789 for the rock dove and the domestic
pigeon; [9,13]), but some 19 domestic forms (17 mam-
mals, a fish and a moth) have names which are tra-
ditionally distinct from those applied to their wild
ancestors ([30]; the names are here set out in Table 1). Of
these, 16 domestic mammals have names that antedate
or are contemporary with those for the wild species and
a few authors have applied these names to the wild
species. This has caused problems and confusion in
zoology and especially in archaeozoology where the
distinction between wild species, domestic forms and
intermediate stages is crucial.
The creation of Latin names for domestic animals
was fashionable for many decades in the 19th and early
20th centuries and a plethora of names in the literature
resulted. The nomenclatural treatment of these names
(as species, subspecies, races or breeds) was inconsistent,
both between authors and within the works of the same
author. Ellerman and Morrison-Scott [19], for example,
treated the wild and domestic forms of the gaur as
separate species, Bos gaurus and B. frontalis; the wild
yak as a subspecies, B. grunniens mutus, of the domestic;
and the wild and domestic forms of the water buffalo as
conspecific, Bubalus bubalis. More recently, attempts
have been made to achieve consistency in the naming of
domestic animals and several nomenclatural systems
have been devised. These were summarised and dis-
cussed by Gautier [23]; the two most notable are men-
tioned here. Bohlken [3,4] proposed that priority should
be suspended for the nomenclature of domestic animals;
he labelled them with the specific name of the wild
ancestor followed by the name of the domestic form
where this had been separately named. In order to
indicate that domestic animals were not “natural” sub-
species he added the word “forma” and treated the
trinominal as infrasubspecific (e.g. “Bos primigenius
forma taurus”). This system was adopted by Herre and
Ro¨hrs [34] and a number of other archaeozoologists
worldwide. Dennler de la Tour [17,18] also considered
that priority should not apply to the names of domestic
animals and proposed that they be labelled with the
name of the wild ancestor followed by “familiaris” to
denote their status (e.g. Bos primigenius “familiaris”).
In response to the inconsistency of treatment in the
two systems proposed by Bohlken [3,4] and Dennler de
la Tour [17,18], neither of which was in accord with the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and to
avoid the danger of a proliferation of such systems, one
of us (C.P.G.) submitted an application [27, pp. 269–
272] to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature (ICZN) which sought to exclude from the
Code names based on domestic animals. Groves pro-
posed that wild species should be referred to by the first
available name based on a wild population, whilst
vernacular names only would be used for domestic
animals (e.g. “Bos (domestic cattle)”). Comments on the
application were received from eight authors; those from
five were published in the Commission’s publication, the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (BZN). All the
commentators opposed the proposal on practical
grounds: (a) there are difficulties in interpreting the
meaning and boundaries of the word “domestic” and it
would be difficult to decide which names were to be
treated as outside the scope of zoological nomenclature;
(b) as noted above, relatively few names based on
domestic forms (19 in all) are distinct from those appli-
cable to their wild ancestors. The majority of wild
species and their domestic derivatives share the same
name, which may well have been based on domestic
forms. If “domestic” names were excluded from nomen-
clature under the Code all these names would be
affected. Additionally, if excluded from the Code, the
“domestic” names could, formally, be re-used for differ-
ent taxa, leading to considerable confusion. The appli-
cation eventually lapsed. Nearly all the commentators,
A. Gentry et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 645–651646

and also Richard Melville (former Secretary to
the Commission) in his summing-up in the BZN of
November 1977, advocated bringing an application to
the Commission to deal individually with the names for
wild species which are distinct from and are contem-
porary with or postdate those for domestic animals.
However, it was not until 1996 that a revised application
was made (see below).
Following Groves’s [27] application the inconsistent
treatment of the names for domestic animals continued.
Table 1
Wild species and their domestic derivatives which traditionally have separate names
Wild species Domestic form
Perissodactyla
Equus africanus Heuglin and Fitzinger, 1866 [66, p. 588] Equus asinus Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 73]
North African wild ass Donkey
Equus ferus Boddaert, 1785 [2, p. 159] Equus caballus Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 73]
Russian wild horse, tarpan Domestic horse
Artiodactyla
Camelus ferus Przewalski, 1878 [56, pp. 20, 43] Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 65]
Wild Bactrian camel, now restricted to the western Gobi desert Domestic Bactrian camel
Lama guanicoe (Mu¨ller, 1776) [51, p. 50] Lama glama (Linnaeus, 1758) [42, p. 65]
South American guanaco Llama
Vicugna vicugna (Molina, 1782) [47, p. 313] Vicugna pacos (Linnaeus, 1758) [42, p. 66]
South Americam vicun˜a Alpaca
Bos primigenius Bojanus, 1827 [5, p. 477, pl. 24] Bos taurus Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 71]
Aurochs of Europe, Asia and North Africa, extinct since 1627 Common cattle
Bos namadicus
a
Falconer, 1859 [21, p. 230] Bos indicus Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 72]
Indian aurochs, extinct Indian humped cattle or zebu
Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 [59, p. 399] Bos frontalis Lambert, 1804 [41, p. 57]
Gaur of India, Burma and Malaya Gaur, mithan
Bubalus arnee (Kerr, 1792) [38, p. 336, figs. opposite pp. 295, 336] Bubalus bubalis (Linnaeus, 1758) [42, p. 72]
Indian water buffalo, arni Domestic water buffalo
Bos mutus (Przewalski, 1883) [57, p. 191, pl. opposite p. 190] Bos grunniens Linnaeus, 1766 [43, p. 99]
Yak of mountains of Tibet, Nepal and the Himalayas Domestic yak
Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777 [20, p. 260] Capra hircus Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 68]
Bezoar of the Middle East Domestic goat
Ovis orientalis Gmelin, 1774 [25, pp. 432, 486, pl. 15] Ovis aries Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 70]
Mouflon of Western Asia Domestic sheep (including European mouflon; [62])
Sus scrofa
b
Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 49] Sus domesticus Erxleben, 1777 [20, p. 179]
Wild boar of Europe, Asia and North Africa Domestic pig
Rodentia
Cavia aperea Erxleben, 1777 [20,p.348] Cavia porcellus (Linnaeus, 1758) [42, p. 59]
South American cavy Domestic guinea pig
Carnivora
Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 39] Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 38]
Wolf of the Palaearctic, India and North America Dog (including dingo)
Mustela putorius Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 46] Mustelo furo Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 46]
Polecat of Europe, Middle East and Morocco Ferret
Felis silvestris Schreber, 1777 [67, p. 39] Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758 [42, p. 42]
Wildcat of Western Europe to Western China and Central India, much of Africa Domestic cat
Osteichthyes
Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782) [1, p. 71] Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758) [42, p. 322]
Prussian or gibel carp of Central Europe to East Asia Goldfish
Lepidoptera
Bombyx mandarina (Moore, 1872) [48, p. 576] Bombyx mori (Linnaeus, 1758) [42, p. 499]
Mulberry silk moth of China, Korea and Japan Silkworm
a
The name Bos namadicus Falconer, 1859, the Indian aurochs, and that for its domestic derivative, B. indicus Linnaeus, 1758, the Indian humped
cattle or zebu, have been added to the Table since publication of Opinion 2027 in March 2003 [36]. In our application to the ICZN B. indicus was
included as a synonym of B. taurus, the name for common cattle. Archaeological and recent genetic studies strongly suggest that non-humped cattle
of Europe and Western Asia and the zebu were independent domestications from different subspecies of the aurochs, Bos primigenius primigenius and
B. p. namadicus respectively [39,44].
b
The name Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 for the wild boar predates that for the domestic form, S. domesticus Erxleben, 1777, and S. scrofa was
therefore not included in the application to the ICZN.
A. Gentry et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 645–651 647

A number of authors [10,11,15] urged that names for
domestic forms should be vernacular only. Odening [54],
however, treating domestic animals and their wild
ancestors as conspecific, proposed that the earliest avail-
able name for the two components should be adopted,
domestic animals being indicated by the notation
“hemerotype” and wild species by “agriotype” (e.g.
“Felis catus” would denote both wild and domestic cats,
“F. catus agriot.” all wildcats, and “F. catus hemerot.”
all domestic cats). Where the ancestor of the domestic
form was not known separate names would be used for
the wild species and domestic form. Corbet and Clutton-
Brock [13] recommended that Linnaean names be used
for domestic animals as if separate from the wild species
but in quotation marks to indicate their status (e.g.
Canis “familiaris”). Clutton-Brock [6,9] subsequently
used names based on domestic animals as valid for
domestic forms, and applied the first available names
based on wild species to the wild taxa. Gautier [23]
proposed that domestic animals be treated as subspecies
of wild species and named accordingly, whilst in the
same volume Uerpmann [64] proposed that domestic
animals should be denoted by a single Latin word
printed in capitals and italics (e.g. ALPACA,BOS,
BANTENG,CABALLUS,LAMA).
3. Naming wild ancestral species
Notwithstanding the continuing discussions on what
should be the approved nomenclature of domestic
animals, for those with distinct Latin names of their own
the naming of their wild ancestors has been relatively
stable in recent years. Most authors have adopted the
first available name based on the wild species as valid for
the taxon (see Table 1, left side). The names have
appeared in current checklists and reference works (see,
for example, [12,14,15,53]) and numerous publications
on biology, ecology, behaviour and conservation, as well
as taxonomy. Recent representative works in which the
names have been used include Groves [28,29], Kingdon
[40], Stuart [61], Martin and Klein [46], Uerpmann [63],
Skinner and Smithers [58], Harrison and Bates [32],
Morey [49] and Wheeler [69]. The first available name
based on the wild species was adopted for endangered
taxa in the 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals
[26], and in legal documentation relating to the conser-
vation and management of protected species (for
example, in 1996, Appendices of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) [72]).
The 1993 edition of the influential Mammals of the
World, edited by D.E Wilson and D.A.M. Reeder [70],
was an unfortunate exception to the majority usage of
the first available Latin name based on a wild popu-
lation for wild progenitor species. In the chapters on the
Perissodactyla and the Artiodactyla names were used for
wild species irrespective of whether they were first de-
scribed on a wild or a domestic form. Thus the Linnaean
names Equus asinus and E. caballus were used for both
the wild and domestic forms of ass and horse respect-
ively, and Bos taurus was used for the aurochs, with
B. primigenius Bojanus, 1827 included as a synonym.
Similarly, Ovis aries and Capra hircus were given as the
valid names for the wild progenitors of sheep and goats,
which usually appear as Ovis orientalis Gmelin, 1774
and Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777 in archaeozoological
publications and current checklists (such as [14]).
Editorial policy was to adopt the earliest name (see the
Introduction, p. 9) but this was not used for taxa in
other chapters of the Wilson and Reeder volume [70]
where, for example, the Linnaean name for the domestic
cat, Felis catus, was cited as a synonym of F. silvestris
Schreber, 1777, the wild cat, and the Linnaean name
Cavia porcellus was restricted to the domestic form of
the guinea pig.
4. ICZN ruling on the names for wild ancestral species
The three of us saw any continuing use for wild
species of names that were first based on domestic forms
as a retrograde step that would confuse not only biol-
ogists, palaeontologists, archaeologists and those in
applied fields (ecology, conservation, behaviour studies
and physiological research) but also customs officials
who had the job of sorting out illegal imports of
endangered species (they would find it difficult to
impound a trophy head of a wild sheep if it carried the
name of Ovis aries). We took note of the review of the
Wilson and Reeder volume [70] by Corbet and Hill [16]
in which they criticised both the unaccustomed inclusion
for these taxa of the domestic form and the wild species
under the same name and the inconsistency of treatment
in different groups (they wrote that “the ambiguities .
could easily be avoided by excluding the domestic forms
from the wild species”). In 1995 we submitted an appli-
cation to the ICZN [24] which, in accord with prevailing
usage for 15 mammal taxa listed in Table 1 (left side),
proposed that the usage for wild taxa of the first
available names based on wild species should be stabil-
ised. Before publication our proposals were discussed
and endorsed by the Executive Committee of the
International Council of Archaeozoology at a meeting
(July 1995) in Cambridge, UK, and by a meeting
(September 1995) of the ICAZ in Basle. Two non-
mammalian taxa, Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782), the
Prussian or gibel carp, and Bombyx mandarina Moore,
1872, the mulberry silk moth, also traditionally have
distinct names which postdate those of the derived
domestic forms, C. auratus (Linnaeus, 1758), the gold-
fish, and B. mori (Linnaeus, 1758), the silkworm. To our
knowledge there has been no confusion in the use of
these names but for the sake of consistency the names
A. Gentry et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 645–651648

for the wild species of carp and silkmoth were eventually
included in the application.
Over the next six years our application received many
comments, which were published in the BZN. Most were
in favour of our proposals and there was considerable
support from workers in zoology, archaeozoology,
palaeontology, conservation, ecology, ethology and en-
dangered species management. A few commentators
were not in favour but this seemed to be because they
had misunderstood the intention of the application: they
assumed that we were either proposing that the earlier
names based on domestic forms should be discarded or
that two alternative names should be adopted as valid
for the wild species. We noted in published replies
to these commentators that neither assumption was
correct.
In March 2003 the Commission approved the pro-
posal and the ruling (Opinion 2027) was published [36].
Approval of the application has ratified the current
majority usage and ensured the stability of 17 specific
names for wild species (Table 1, left side) which are
traditionally distinct from those of their domestic de-
rivatives. Implementation of the ruling means that
names based on wild populations will continue to be
used for wild species and will include those for domestic
forms if these are considered conspecific. It allows
workers the freedom to decide the taxonomic limits of
the names based on wild species, giving them the taxo-
nomic judgement as to what degree of domestication can
be encompassed in the species-concept employed. This is
particularly important in many archaeological studies
where the ancestral wild species is usually not in doubt
while the evidence of domestication is debatable.
Use of the now-approved specific name for a wild
species, based on a wild population, will not affect or be
affected by future changes in ideas about the ancestry of
the domestic form. For example, traditionally both the
domestic llama and alpaca were considered to have been
derived from the wild South American guanaco, Lama
guanicoe (Mu¨ller, 1776), while the vicun˜a, Vicugna
vicugna (Molina, 1782), was thought not to have been
domesticated ([33] and others). Recent genetic research
has suggested that only the llama derives from the
guanaco and that the alpaca is descended mainly from
the vicun˜a, domestication having begun 6000–7000 years
ago in the Peruvian Andes [37]. Whatever the final
outcome on the ancestry of the alpaca the specific name
vicugna has now been fixed for the vicun˜a. Similarly, it
has not yet been conclusively demonstrated that Cavia
aperea Erxleben, 1777 is the ancestor of the domestic
form of the guinea pig, but the use of the names
C. aperea and C. porcellus (Linnaeus, 1758) for the wild
widespread South American species and the domestic
form is the best solution in the present understanding.
Greater sophistication in a number of methods of
genetic analysis is allowing the ancestry of domestic
animals to be investigated. Analysis of mitochondrial
DNA has indicated that in the domesticates so far
studied there is one main lineage but also evidence of a
second, and in goats a third, additional lineage. These
lineages are derived from two or more ancestral sources
from different geographical areas. In sheep the main
ancestor is the western Asian mouflon, Ovis orientalis,
and the additional wild ancestor has yet to be identified.
It may well be eventually demonstrated that most, if not
all, domestic forms have been derived from more than
one wild progenitor. Studies of nuclear DNA have
indicated that hybridisation of the domestic form with
wild species and other domesticates has taken place
during domestication. For example, there is evidence in
both the llama and alpaca, and particularly the latter,
for reciprocal hybridisation and introgression with both
wild ancestors.
5. Recommendation for the names of domestic forms
The Commission ruling allows workers the freedom
to decide whether or not to include domesticates in the
wild species concept, in accordance with the stated
aims of taxonomic freedom in the Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. In practice, since wild species and their
derivatives are recognisable entities, it is desirable to
separate them nomenclaturally when distinct names
exist. Fixation in the ruling of the names for wild
progenitor species has ensured their stability and has
settled part of the long-standing problem in the naming
of wild and domestic forms where the names are tra-
ditionally separate. We now recommend that names
based on domestic forms (Table 1, right side) be adopted
for the corresponding domestic derivatives. These were
established by Linnaeus [42,43] with the exceptions of
the names for the domestic gaur (Bos frontalis Lambert,
1804) and the domestic pig (Sus domesticus Erxleben,
1777). The names have been in use for over 200 years
and are internationally recognised. Moreover, in his
compilation of mammalian genera and families, Palmer
[55] recorded the type species designations made by
earlier authors and in a number of cases the types are
domestic animals. Several of the names for genera and
their type species have been included in the Official Lists
of Names in Zoology compiled by the ICZN. The
generic names Bos and Ovis were placed on the Official
List in Opinion 75 (January 1922), Canis,Capra and
Felis in Opinion 91 (October 1926). The type species of
these genera (Bos taurus,Ovis aries,Canis familiaris,
Capra hircus and Felis catus respectively, in accord with
Palmer’s [55] citations), were placed on the Official List
in Direction 22 (November 1955). Equus and its type
species, E. caballus, were placed on Official Lists in
Opinion 271 (September 1954). The silkworm Phalaena
mori Linnaeus, 1758 was designated the type of Bombyx
A. Gentry et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 645–651 649

Linnaeus, 1758 and placed on the Official List in
Opinion 450 (March 1957).
Under Article 17.2 of the Code of Zoological Nomen-
clature the availability of specific names for domestic
animals is not affected even if they are known, or later
found, to be of hybrid origin. Article 23.8 further states
that a specific name for an animal later found to be
hybrid must not be transferred to either of the parental
species, even if it is older than all other available names
for them. This is particularly relevant in the case of
domestic animals because many of their names predate
those of the wild species.
Names based on domestic forms apply also to feral
populations (i.e. animals living in a self-sustained popu-
lation after a history of domestication; [8, p. 19]). For
example, the feral Bactrian camels in Australia retain the
name Camelus bactrianus established by Linnaeus (1758)
for the two-humped domestic Bactrian camel.
References
[1] M.E. Bloch, Oeconomische Naturgeschichte der Fische Deutsch-
lands, vol. 1, Berlin, 1782.
[2] P. Boddaert, Elenchus Animalium, vol. 1 (Sistens Quadrupedia),
Rotterdam, 1785.
[3] H. Bohlken, Zur Nomenklatur der Haustiere, Zoologischer
Anzeiger 160 (1958) 167–168.
[4] H. Bohlken, Haustiere und zoologische Systematik, Zeitschrift fu¨r
Tierzu¨chtung und Zu¨ chtungsbiologie 76 (1961) 107–113.
[5] L.H. Bojanus, De Uro nostrate eiusque sceleto commentatio.
Scripsit et Bovis primigenii sceleto auxit, Nova Acta Physico-
Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino Carolinae 13 (1827)
411–478.
[6] J. Clutton-Brock, Appendix 1: nomenclature of the domestic
mammals, A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals, British
Museum (Natural History), London, 1987, pp. 194–197.
[7] J. Clutton-Brock (Ed.), The Walking Larder. Patterns of
Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation, Unwin Hyman,
London, 1989.
[8] J. Clutton-Brock, Horse Power: a History of the Horse and
Donkey in Human Societies, Natural History Museum Publi-
cations, London; Harvard University Press, Boston, 1992.
[9] J. Clutton-Brock, A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals,
second ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; The Natural
History Museum, London, 1999.
[10] J. Clutton-Brock, G.B. Corbet, M. Hills, A review of the family
Canidae, with a classification by numerical methods. Bulletin of
the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology 29 (1976)
119–199.
[11] W.R. Cockerill (Ed.), The Camelid. An All-purpose Animal 1,
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala, 1984.
[12] G.B. Corbet, J.E. Hill, The Mammals of the Indomalayan
Region: a Systematic Review, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1992.
[13] G.B. Corbet, J. Clutton-Brock, Appendix: taxonomy and
nomenclature, in: I.L. Mason (Ed.), Evolution of Domesticated
Animals, Longman, London, 1984, pp. 434–438.
[14] G.B. Corbet, J.E. Hill, A World List of Mammalian Species, third
ed, Natural History Museum, London, 1991.
[15] G.B. Corbet, The Mammals of the Palaearctic Region: a Taxo-
nomic Review, British Museum (Natural History), London, 1978.
[16] G.B. Corbet, J.E. Hill, Review, in: D.E. Wilson, D.M. Reeder
(Eds), 1993. Mammal Species of the World; a Taxonomic and
Geographic Reference, second ed., The view from the Old World,
Journal of Mammalogy 75 (1994) 239–243.
[17] G. Dennler de La Tour, La descendencia del perro, Act. Congr.
Sudamer. de Zool. 4 (1959) 215–223.
[18] G. Dennler de La Tour, Zur Frage der Haustier-Nomenklatur,
Sa¨ugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 16 (1968) 1–20.
[19] J.R. Ellerman, T.C.S. Morrison-Scott, Checklist of Palaearctic
and Indian Mammals 1758 to 1946, British Museum (Natural
History), London, 1951.
[20] J.C.B. Erxleben, Systema Regni Animalis .Classis 1 (Mam-
malia), Lipsiae, 1777.
[21] H. Falconer, Bos namadicus, in: H. Falconer, H. Walker (Eds),
Catalogue of fossil Vertebrata in the Museum of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1859, pp. 229–233, 241–245.
[22] A. Gautier, La Domestication. Et l’Homme Cre´a ses Animaux,
Errance, Paris, 1990.
[23] A. Gautier, “What’s in a name?” A short history of the Latin and
other labels proposed for domestic animals, in: A. Clason, S.
Payne, H.-P. Uerpmann (Eds), Skeletons in her Cupboard.
Festschrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock, Oxbow Monograph no. 34,
Oxford, 1993.
[24] A. Gentry, J. Clutton-Brock, C.P. Groves, Case 3010. 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, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53
(1996) 28–37.
[25] S.G. Gmelin, Reise durch Russland zur Untersuchung der drey
Natur-Reiche, vol. 3, St Petersbourg, 1774.
[26] B. Groombridge (Ed.), 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Animals, IUCN—The World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
Gland, Switzerland, 1993.
[27] C.P. Groves, Request for a declaration modifying Article 1 so as
to exclude names proposed for domestic animals from zoological
nomeclature, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 (1971)
269–272.
[28] C.P. Groves, Horses, Asses and Zebras in the Wild, David &
Charles, London, 1974.
[29] C.P. Groves, The taxonomy, distribution, and adaptations of
Recent equids, in: R.H. Meadow, H.P. Uerpmann (Eds.), Equids
in the Ancient World, Reichert, Wiesbaden, 1986, pp. 11–65.
[30] C.P. Groves, On the nomenclature of domestic animals, Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature 52 (1995) 137–141.
[31] D.R. Harris, The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pasto-
ralism in Eurasia, UCL Press, 1995.
[32] D.L. Harrison, P.J.J. Bates, The Mammals of Arabia, second ed,
Harrison Zoological Museum, Sevenoaks, 1991.
[33] H. Hemmer, Zur Herkunft des Alpakas, Zeitschrift des Ko¨lner
Zoo 18 (1975) 59–66.
[34] W. Herre, M. Rohrs, Haustier—zoologisch gesehen, Fischer,
Stuttgart, 1990.
[35] S. Hiendleder, K. Mainz, Y. Plante, H. Lewalski, Analysis of
mitochondrial DNA indicates that domestic sheep are derived
from two different ancestral maternal sources: no evidence for
contributions from Urial and Argali sheep, Journal of Heredity
89 (1998) 113–120.
[36] International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Opinion
2027 (Case 3010). Usage of 17 specific names based on wild
species which are predated by or contemporary with those based
on domestic animals (Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia):
conserved, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60 (2003) 81–84.
[37] M. Kadwell, M. Fernandez, H.F. Stanley, R. Baldi, J.C. Wheeler,
R Rosadio, M.W. Bruford, Genetic analysis reveals the wild
ancestors of the llama and the alpaca, Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London (B) 268 (2001) 2575–2584.
A. Gentry et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 645–651650

[38] R. Kerr, The Animal Kingdom or Zoological System of the
celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus, vol. 1, part 1 (Mammalia),
Murray, London.
[39] Y. Kikkawa, T. Amano, H. Suzuki, Analysis of genetic diversity
of domestic cattle in East and Southeast Asia in terms of variation
in restriction sites and sequences of mitochondrial DNA, Bio-
chemical Genetics 33 (1995) 51–60.
[40] J. Kingdon, East African Mammals. An Atlas of Evolution in
Africa, vol. 3, part B (Large mammals), 1979, pp. 125–179
(Equus); part C (Bovids), 1982, pp. 52–55 (Bovini), Academic
Press, London.
[41] A.B. Lambert, Description of Bos frontalis, a new species, from
India, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 7 (1804)
57–59.
[42] C. Linnaeus, Systema Naturae, tenth ed., vol. 1, Holmiae, Salvii,
1758.
[43] C. Linnaeus, Systema Naturae, twelfth ed., part 1, Holmiae,
Salvii, 1766.
[44] R.T. Loftus, D.E. MacHugh, D.G. Bradley, P.M. Sharp, E.P.
Cunningham, Evidence for two independent domestications in
cattle, Proccedings of the National Academy of Sciences 91 (1994)
2757–2761.
[45] D.E. MacHugh, D.G. Bradley, Livestock genetic origins: goats
buck the trend, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
98 (10) (2001) 5382–5384.
[46] P.S. Martin, R.G. Klein, Quaternary Extinctions. A Prehistoric
Revolution, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1984.
[47] J.I. Molina, Saggio sulle Storia Naturale del Chile, Bologna,
1782.
[48] F. Moore, Descriptions of new Indian Lepidoptera, Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London 1872 (1872) 555–583.
[49] D.F. Morey, The early evolution of the domestic dog, American
Scientist 82 (1994) 336–347.
[50] P.A. Morris, British mammals—their status, research needs and
likely future, Mammal Review 23 (1993) 167–176.
[51] P.L.S. Mu¨ ller, Des Ritters Carl von Linne´ .voustandigen
Natursystems. Supplements und Register, Nu¨rnberg, 1776.
[52] C. Novoa, J.C. Wheeler, Lama and alpaca, in: I.L. Mason (Ed.),
Evolution of Domesticated Animals, Longman, London, 1984,
pp. 116–128.
[53] R.M. Nowak, Walker’s Mammals of the World, fifth ed, Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London, 1991.
[54] K. Odening, Zur Taxonomie und Benennung der Haustier,
Zoologische Garten, N.F. 49 (1979) 89–103.
[55] T.S. Palmer, Index Generum Mammalium: a List of the Genera
and Families of Mammals. North American Fauna No. 23, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, 1904.
[56] N.M. Przewalski, From Kul’dzha through Tyan’-Shan’ to Lob-
Nor, St Petersburg, 1878 [In Russian.]
[57] N.M. Przewalski, Third journey in Central Asia. From Zaisan
through Khami into Tibet and to the sources of the Yellow River,
St Petersbourg, 1883. [In Russian.]
[58] J.D. Skinner, R.H.N. Smithers, The Mammals of the Southern
African subregion, second ed, University of Pretoria, Pretoria,
1990.
[59] C.H. Smith, The Ruminantia, in: E. Griffith, C.H. Smith, E.
Pidgeon (Eds.), The Animal Kingdom arranged in Conformity
with its Organisation, by the Baron Cuvier, with Additional
Descriptions of All the Species hitherto Named, and of Many not
before Noticed, vol. 4, Whittaker, London, 1827.
[60] H.J. Stains, Distribution and taxonomy of the canids, in: M.W.
Fox (Ed.), The Wild Canids. Their Systematics, Behavioral
Ecology and Evolution, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
1975, pp. 3–26.
[61] A.J. Stuart, Pleistocene Vertebrates in the British Isles, Longman,
London, 1982.
[62] H.-P. Uerpmann, Ovis musimon Schreber, 1782 oder Ovis musi-
mon Pallas, 1814?, Sa¨ugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 29 (1981)
59–60.
[63] H.-P. Uerpmann, The Ancient Distribution of Ungulate Mam-
mals in the Middle East. Fauna and Archaeological Sites in
Southwest Asia and Northeast Africa, Reichert, Wiesbaden, 1987.
[64] H.-P. Uerpmann, Proposal for a separate nomenclature of dom-
estic animals, in: A. Clason, S. Payne, H.-P. Uepmann (Eds),
Skeletons in her Cupboard. Festschrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock,
Oxbow Monograph no. 34, Oxford, 1993, pp. 239–241.
[65] R.G. Van Gelder, Biology of Mammals, Scribner, New York,
1969.
[66] T. von Heuglin, L.J. Fitzinger, Systematische U
¨bersicht der
Sa¨ugethiere Nordost-Afrika’s mit Einschluss der arabischen
Ku¨ste, des rothen Meeres, der Soma´li- und der Nilquellen-
La¨nder, su¨ dwa¨ rts bis zum vierten Grade no¨ dlicher Breite,
Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe 54 (1866) 537–611.
[67] J.C.D von Schreber, Die Sa¨ugthiere in Abbildungen nach der
Natur, mit Beschreibungen, vol. 3, Leipzig, 1777, pp. 283–590,
pls. 81–166.
[68] J.-D. Vigne, G. Dollfus, J. Peters, Les de´buts de l’e´levage au
Proche-Orient: donne´es nouvelles et re´flexions, Pale´orient 25 (2)
(2000) 5–8, English translation of the text, pp. 9–10.
[69] J.C. Wheeler, Evolution and present situation of the South
American Camelidae, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
54 (1995) 271–295.
[70] D.E. Wilson, D.A.M. Reeder (Eds.), Mammal Species of the
World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, second ed,
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & London, 1993.
[71] E.S. Wing, The realm between wild and domestic, in A. Clason, S.
Payne, H.-P.Uepmann (Eds), Skeletons in her Cupboard. Fest-
schrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock, Oxbow Monograph no. 34,
Oxford, 1993, pp. 243–250.
[72] World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Checklist of CITES
Species. A Reference to the Appenices to the International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES Secre-
tariat & World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge,
UK, 1996.
A. Gentry et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 645–651 651