[Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2
biotax at primus.ca
Fri Oct 19 18:57:38 CDT 2012
Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2
I would like to determine if the following scenario results in an available or unavailable name.
So far name satisfies Article 11 which leads me to Article 13.
A new species A. americana is proposed by Fittkau 1962 but without a description and no type selected, instead citing a bibliographic reference: syn P. monilis Tokunaga 1937. Under this name a description is given, but has since been pointed out that the specimens listed as ?examined (122) consist of 2 possibly 3 species with insufficient taxonomic resolution to accurately determine if the description represents one species (as interpreted now) or more. The specimens are stored in alcohol with only a third remaining in the Museum's collection. It has also been concluded that the specimens have deteriorated to the point that identifying them would be very difficult. In a recent review of the species from Japan, it was decided to use available synonyms to describe two closely related species.
Only article 13.1.2 applies which states " be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement" [purported to differentiate the taxon]. My interpretation of "differentiate" is to separate from other species, as oppose to describe. There is no definition given so it leaves me indoubt on how to apply Article 13.1.2 in this situation.
Supplementing on this example, if the cited reference had listed a jr. syn. which has since been determined to be a valid separate species, so that the single description includes two species, would that change the outcome regarding the name A. americana as an available name?
More information about the Taxacom