[Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Oct 19 19:20:31 CDT 2012


It is not good to tackle these sorts of questions without seeing the original publication(s)...
 
I presume you mean P. monilis sensu Tokunaga 1937 ? Otherwise, monilis would be the valid name for americana!
 
The key word is "purport", and external evidence is irrelevant, so if Fittkau (1962) said he was naming americana as a new species for P. monilis sensu Tokunaga 1937, then americana is indeed an available name (all other things being equal) ...
 
Stephen



________________________________
From: Bohdan Bilyj <biotax at primus.ca>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Saturday, 20 October 2012 12:57 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Clarification of Code's Article. 13.1.2

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


More information about the Taxacom mailing list