[Taxacom] "deprecation" (was Taxonomy... in the 21st century)

[George D.F. (Buz) Wilson]

ICZN has a useful category: "nomen dubium"
- from the glossary (http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp)

*/nomen dubium/* (/pl./ */nomina dubia/*), /n/.
    A Latin term meaning "a name of unknown or doubtful application".

Why put in a new, possibly complicated system, when we already have a 
flag for names that are not supported by definitive evidence?  I think 
that nomen dubium should be used a lot more often, especially for the 
older names that don't have types, if the species names are not used 
much.  For frequently-used names without types, a neotype works well and 
is can be gotten for price of  a modern species description of fresh 
specimens from the original author's species locality. Sometimes even 
the latter is problematic: e.g., some of the old descriptions list the 
type locality of some terrestrial isopods as "New Holland" (=Australia). 
Use of nomen dubium in such cases can save a lot of effort.

[for those that may be unfamiliar with the word, "deprecation" is used 
in the LINUX open-source world for software packages that have become 
outdated, and possibly problematic for newer systems. Maybe they should 
call such packages "dubious software"...]

Cheers

Buz Wilson
Australian Museum


Mary Barkworth wrote:
> What would be the implications of "deprecation"?  The production of
> articles supporting deprecation of individual names? Would this require
> as as much, or almost as much, effort as finding a lectotype and/or
> establishing a neotype? There are better things to do with one's time. 
>  
> For some names, a change in the Code could lead to a relatively simple
> solution. I am thinking of non-controversial names that are in common
> use but for which it is known that the type no longer exists. Despite
> this, no neotype has been established. In my case it is simply because
> it would take time, effort, and money but accomplish nothing very
> valuable. The difficulty is in locating a specimen the author might have
> seen, perhaps. The author lived in Europe, long ago; I live in the US,
> now. Lectotypification is possible - but it really will not change
> things.   In such cases, it would be useful to be able to select a
> neotype in an institution near or in the species' current distribution
> [more useful than having an old fragmentary specimen on a different
> continent] that fits the non-controversial use of the name and just move
> on. No, I have never proposed an amendment to the Code in this respect.
> Of course, the kind of names I describe are "in common use" so would not
> be on the deprecated list. 
> Mary
>