[Taxacom] Bibliographic References

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Wed Oct 24 16:04:39 CDT 2012


Just another case with a similar situation that I checked myself:

Wenz 1947 (Archiv für Molluskenkunde, 76(1-3): 36) intended to establish a
new replacement name Pseudocaelatura for the gastropod Ariocaelatura sensu
Thiele 1931 (Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde 1 (2): 615), not
Germain, 1921 (Faune malacologique terrestre et fluviatile des iles
Mascareignes: 461), but Thiele 1931 only subsequently used Germain's name.
Pseudocaelatura could only have been established as a regular new name.
Wenz 1947 gave a type species (derived from Thiele's 1931 usage), but no
description. Thiele 1931: 615 had provided a description, which was
however not purported to distinguish the taxon from Ariocaelatura Germain,
1921 (Thiele had cited "Ariocaelatura Germain, 1921" as such and had
intended to give a description for it, and gave a species as an example
for the genus). The conditions of Art. 13.1.2 were not satisfied, so the
name was not made available by Wenz 1947.

Francisco


> Intention to differentiate is different to whether the intention succeeds
> or not.
> We need to be very careful to steer clear of the idea that some taxonomist
> could appeal to the Code to dismiss the work of another by claiming that
> the other's descriptions are not "good enough" to make the names
> available, and then go about renaming them anew...
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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: Wednesday, 24 October 2012 10:04 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 ...
>
> There was this author Iredale in New Zealand or Australia, I saw a lot of
> very brief introductions of genera, at both sides of the limit provided by
> the Code. Many of them were not made available.
>
> In the French Code it is even more rigid, there in Art. 13.1.2 the name
> must be described in a form that allows to distinguish it from others. So
> the intention of this Article is clear, and authors are not allowed to
> write too bad and too brief descriptions. Just referring to a
> misidentification where an author wrote, I have a big specimen of this
> Linnean species, and I found it in Japan, might perfectly allow to
> recognise what this author had there, but it is not in agreement with Art.
> 13.1.2, because it was not the description that allowed the
> differentiation. Saying "big" can be a differential description, but only
> in certain circumstances. Proceeding so is not as you say "prohibited" by
> the Code, it's just that the Code's provisions are not satisfied. I have
> seen a lot of this kind of situations in Iredale's publications.
>
> Francisco
>
>>
>> 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/
>
>
> 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