[Taxacom] Bibliographic References

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Oct 22 16:44:41 CDT 2012


Well, that statement runs the risk of adding to the confusion, so better to say this:
 
For a new name to be available from Fittkau (1962), Fittkau (1962) has to give a description (either directly or indirectly via bibliographic ref.) which *he* (i.e. Fittkau) purports to differentiate between the relevant taxa. The last bit has nothing to do with Tokunaga! The biblio. ref. to Tokunaga is just "shorthand" for the actual description (by Tokunaga) ...
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> 
Cc: Bohdan Bilyj <biotax at primus.ca>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Bibliographic References

To be really pedantic -- and that's what Codes are all about ....

Art. 13.1.2 does not state "where" or "when" those characters can be used to "purport to differentiate"! It merely says "... states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon". Without a specifying phrase such as "in that work", those characters could be used to differentiate the taxon anyplace and anytime.

... and that is exactly what Fittaku did in 1962 .....

-N

On 10/22/12 11:22 AM, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>> scribbled the following tidbit:

Neal,

Francisco's point appears to be this:

If I give a (re)description of what I (mis)identify as Aus bus, then, obviously, my description does not differentiate between the species I have before me and Aus bus. This is true to the point of "bleedin' obviousness", but is quite irrelevant! If you then come along and name a new species Aus cus, giving my description as a bibliographic reference, then *you* are using *my* description to differentiate my species (Aus cus) from Aus bus...

Stephen

From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>
To: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de<mailto:fwelter at gwdg.de>>; Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>
Cc: Bohdan Bilyj <biotax at primus.ca<mailto:biotax at primus.ca>>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Bibliographic References



On 10/22/12 10:36 AM, "Francisco Welter-Schultes" <fwelter at gwdg.de<mailto:fwelter at gwdg.de><mailto:fwelter at gwdg.de<mailto:fwelter at gwdg.de>>> scribbled the following tidbit:


Tokunaga cannot have given a differential description in relation to the
nominal species s/he misidentified. Such is the nature of a sensu name.

Why not?

There are innumerable cases of works naming a new species for a misidentified species and (without checking) assume that there are probably a lot of cases like Fittakau (1962) in naming a new species by bibliographic reference and pointing to the misidentification in a previously published work for those characters needed for the species. The fact the Tokunaga gives characters and says it is a previously named species does not negate the fact he is giving characters to differentiate. He is not explicitly differentiating the species he identified but has given characters that indeed can be used to differentiate -- as Fittakau has proven!

In another interpretation of 13.1.2 when looking for definitions of the words used there: "purport to differentiate" actually means "falsely profess" to differentiate. Look up the definition of "purport". It is not explicitly to profess, but more commonly, it is to falsely profess. Which is exactly what Toknaga has done. He has given characters that he thought were of a previously described taxon that could be used to differentiate it from other species. However, he was wrong, thus he falsely professed to differentiate that species by misidentifying it.

My 2 cents.

-Neal

________________________________
This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list