[Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2

Scott Thomson scott.thomson321 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 19 19:12:07 CDT 2012


Basically the paper being referred to has to have a statement in text which
claims to differentiate, ie separate, the species being discussed. Its
basically a claim that this character works, it does not in fact have to be
correct about this. So no matter how bad the description being cited is, if
it claims to separate the species its a valid description. This original
description I assume has a type, hence the differentiation is attached to
that type, extra specimens examined no matter how many species are also not
grounds to invalidate it. From what your saying it sounds like a valid
name, meeting the criteria of 13.1.2.

Cheers, Scott


On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Bohdan Bilyj <biotax at primus.ca> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Bohdan
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



-- 
Scott Thomson
700 Holly Street
Warren, PA, 16365
USA
(814) 406 4605
Skype: Faendalimas
http://www.carettochelys.com



More information about the Taxacom mailing list