[Taxacom] manuscript name question
gread at actrix.gen.nz
Sat Oct 10 01:28:40 CDT 2015
Yes, I'm pretty doubtful about that unambiguity too.
Sorry, your earlier pertinent comments I seem to have missed in the volume
of noise. The authors do make a feature of discussing 73.1.4 and the case
seems similar to the 2005 monkey in the forest in which the authors said
the holotype was the animal in the photo, just as the fly authors do here
("Holotype represented in photograph No. 7007"). Polaszek et al (in the
item I give the Doi for) then invoked 73.1.4 as justification for no
physical specimen with the following words "Article 73.1.4 provides an
opportunity for the description of new taxa without the necessity of
providing dead type specimens".
Now you say that above is irrelevant. Okay, then we fall back on how to
interpret the term extant in Art. 16.4.2, which the current authors get
around by saying their specimen is suddenly not extant - there it was in
the photo, but now the molecules which made it up no longer adhere - poof,
it's vanished, and 16.4.2 doesn't apply. Actually they say "a lost,
escaped, or purposefully released specimen is not extant. Well, I
cannot agree with that claim. At very least the authors have not provided
any proof of it.
Not sure of the relevance of your 'dead and preserved' comment.
On Sat, October 10, 2015 6:07 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> 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! :)
> Cheers, Stephen
> 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
> current code,
> 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:
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
gread at actrix.gen.nz
More information about the Taxacom