[Taxacom] Bibliographic References

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Mon Oct 22 18:29:12 CDT 2012


PS: Again it is *purported* differentiation that is required, not necessarily successful differentiation, or else we would need to be a taxonomist specialist to know if a name was even available, and taxonomists would disagree aming themselves on borderline cases!
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> 
Cc: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; Bohdan Bilyj <biotax at primus.ca>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Bibliographic References


>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.
 
 
But that would just be bad taxonomy! Nomenclatural rules are not there to prevent that! In fact it is perfectly legit. to base a new species on where it occurs, if you think that it is an allopatric new species, but can't find any way to express in words any differentiating characters (although the species might "look different" in some ineffable but easily recognised way). Such a supposition could be false, but there is no nomenclatural rule to prohibit it ...
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>; Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; Bohdan Bilyj <biotax at primus.ca>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Bibliographic References


> 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.

>
> THERE IS NO PROBLEM HERE!
>
> 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
http://www.animalbase.org/


More information about the Taxacom mailing list