[Taxacom] New monkey from Brazil

Richard Petit r.e.petit at worldnet.att.net
Wed May 17 18:55:47 CDT 2006


Laurent:

Are we reading the same Code?  Article 73.1.4 does not "prevent" a 
photograph (illustration) from representing a holotype, but it explicitly 
"permits" it.  I think the problem may be that "extant" is misunderstood. 
When applied to a specimen it means "still in existence," not "having living 
representatives" which is the meaning when applied to a taxon.  Article 
16.4.2 expressly states that "where the holotype or syntypes are extant 
specimens....."  Note that the phrase does not stop with "extant" but 
specifically refers to "extant specimens."  The Glossary has two definitions 
for extant.

Note the difference in mandatory treatment of neotypes (75.3.7) as 
contrasted with holotypes (16.4.2).

dick p.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>
To: "TAXACOM" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New monkey from Brazil


> Dick,
>
>> There is a big diference between "available" and "valid."   Determination
>> of availability is objective; the validity of a name is subjective.
>> An earlier message took the position that the name was not available as
>> it was based on a photograph and I posted a reply stating that I think
>> the name is available.
>
> The type designation is valid, but this is not enough to make the name
> available.
>
> The ICZN explicitely requires a statement of intent that the type specimen
> will be deposited in a collection, and that the collection be designated
> when the description is published. Sorry, but this has not been done,
> hence the name is not available per Article 16.4. To me this seems a
> perfectly straighforward and objective application of the Code.
> How do you go around this?
>
> Had some hairs, or skin, or blood been retained, this would have provided
> more solid evidence about the validity of the taxon (better science,
> indeed). This might also have made a valid type specimen, that might have
> been deposited somewhere. Here, only photographs were retained and,
> because Article 73.1.4 *prevents* that a photograph be considered a type
> specimen, this is not enough.
> (Invoquing 73.1.4 to justify this practice is more than odd, IMHO...)
>
> Best,
> Laurent -
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom 





More information about the Taxacom mailing list