[Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Oct 9 16:11:06 CDT 2015
And determining exactly what constitutes as "exceptional need" is wherein difficulty lies, thus proving my original point!
On Fri, 9/10/15, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] why Martin Fikacek resign
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Friday, 9 October, 2015, 6:46 PM
On 10/08/2015 10:41 PM, Michael A. Ivie wrote:
> Still, all these diversions aside, Stephen has never
backed up his libel
> of the Code saying it was difficult to designate a
Neotype. That is
> proven incorrect. I am sure no one cares
From the excerpts you provided, the validity is not
the name "is involved in taxonomic confusion" does not
amount to "there is an exceptional need". Note also that,
although it is
required that you stated the existence of an exceptional
need, and that
you explain it, this is not enough. The need must really
*be* there, and
must really *be* exceptional.
If I disagree with your opinion on this point, I can reject
designation as invalid.
Was the name in use, or threatening another name?
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
More information about the Taxacom