[Taxacom] manuscript name question
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 10 00:07:07 CDT 2015
I'm not sure that anything can be truly said to be "unambiguously Code-compliant"! Hoever, as I have tried to explain already (a couple of times), Art 73.1.4 is irrelevant to the fly! Marshall & Evenhius did not designate any photo as a holotype of anything! They designated as holotype of the new fly a specimen which they know only via a photo(s) of it. Art 73.1.4 does not apply! What would apply, if it existed in the Code, which it does not, is a requirement that a designated holotype be a dead and preserved specimen (at any stage in proceedings). If you can find me such I requirement, then I shall bow humbly to your greater intellect! :)
On Sat, 10/10/15, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Saturday, 10 October, 2015, 4:55 PM
Although there is clearly a group who believe that the fly
description "was unambiguously Code-compliant" under the
this is not correct.
Read again Markus Moser's eletter "Holotypic ink" in Science
from 2005 (a
response to a comment and response about the Mangabey monkey
under the doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5744.2163c
Use of 73.1.4 for new taxa is a distortion of the article's
which "... clearly refers to established species of which
the types got
lost somehow or are missing"
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz
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