[Taxacom] Bibliographic References

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Mon Oct 22 18:09:44 CDT 2012

> Yep, I still disagree!
> Let's look at a simplified schema:
> Smith (1900) gives a redescription of what he thinks is Aus bus, but is
> actually a single new species of Aus
> Smith *did* give a description which purports to differentiate this
> species from its congeners, but he just applied the wrong name to it

Okay, Tokunaga did give a description implicitly purported to
differentiate this species from, among others, the African elephant.

> Jones (2000) describes a new species, Aus cus, by way of bibliographic
> reference to the description of Aus bus in Smith (1900)
> Jones would not have done this unless he thinks that Smith's description
> differentiates the new taxon from its congeners ...

and from the African elephant.

But I disagree. If Smith 1900 gave a totally bad description and wrote
this animal occured in a Malaysian forest, then Jones may have felt that
s/he needed nothing to say because no matter how bad the description was,
a species from this genus reported from Malaysia and from forests MUST
have been a new species.

> Stephen
> ________________________________
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; Francisco Welter-Schultes
> <fwelter at gwdg.de>; Bohdan Bilyj <biotax at primus.ca>;
> "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 11:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Bibliographic References
> As said in previous mails, I accepted Fittkau's reference to Tokunaga 1937
> as bibliographic.
> Fittkau 1962 did not give a differential description him or herself, so
> this job was forwarded to Tokunaga 1937:
> 13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published
> statement
> (= "a description or definition that states in words characters that are
> purported to differentiate the taxon", Art. 13.1.1)
> Either the statement was intentionally differential or not. You cannot
> say, in Fittkau's eyes it was intentionally differential, in Tokunaga's
> eyes not. Fittkau did not even give an explicit statement that and why
> s/he regarded Takunaga's description as differential. Perhaps Fittkau did
> not even regard Tokunaga's description at all as differential and
> classified Tokunaga's taxon only with a different species because of the
> geographical range given by Tokunaga, which would not fit into the range
> known for the Linnean species. Or because of the different environment.
> Nothing was said, nothing can be known.
> The "purported" refers to Tokunaga, not to Fittkau, because Fittkau did
> not give an explicit statement in this concern.
> I did not see the 1937 paper either. If Tokunaga wrote "my taxon can be
> distinguished from the other taxon by these and these characters, but I
> don't like to give it a new name now", then the reference would lead to
> "such a statement". But the usual workflow in such sensu names is that
> authors just misidentified a species and did not provide such a
> differential description. I have assumed that this was the case here. If
> Tokunaga provided a clearly intentionally differential description, then
> Fittkau's name would be available. But it appears that this was not so,
> and also Fittkau's notes do not suggest that very accurate work was done
> here.
> Fittkau could have written "take Tokunaga's description, I regard the blue
> colour reported by Tokunaga as differentiating the new taxon from the
> Linnean species", then Fitkau would have done the job. But Fittkau just
> wrote nothing. Doing nothing is always a bad solution if one's job is to
> comply with the Code's provisions, the more so after 1960.
> Francisco
>> 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.
> Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
> Phone +49 551 395536
> http://www.animalbase.org/

Francisco Welter-Schultes
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
Phone +49 551 395536

More information about the Taxacom mailing list