[Taxacom] manuscript name question
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 10 15:59:05 CDT 2015
Actually Rich, the nomenclatural weak point of what Steve & Neal have done with this fly is to interpret the Code in such a way that the holotype isn't an "extant specimen". That could be disputed, based on the EXACT possible meanings of those words, but even if we grant them their preferred interpretation, consider this: they don't really know the fate of that individual fly after it was photographed. Maybe someone collected it! Maybe it has been accessioned into a museum collection. If the accession date can be shown to be before the publication date of the description, then "we have a problem Houston!" That would mean that it was an extant specimen at the time the description was published, so Steve and Neal needed to make a statement of deposition of the holotype in order for the new name to be available! An unlikely, but possible scenario!
On Sun, 11/10/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
To: gread at actrix.gen.nz, Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Sunday, 11 October, 2015, 6:22 AM
OK, as the originator of the
"unambiguous" quote, I feel compelled to reply. Let me
rephrase my original comment as:
"The description of M. xylocopae is about a unambiguously
compliant with the Code as any description of a new taxon
Nothing in the Code is absolutely unambiguous ... in the
sense that nothing in the universe is absolutely
I read Markus Moser's letter, and as impassioned as the
argument is, it runs contrary to what is actually written in
the Code. The way the Code is written, sub-articles
inherit the context of their parent articles. The
parent article for Art. 73.1.4 is Art. 73.1, which reads:
"Holotypes. A holotype is the single specimen upon which a
new nominal species-group taxon is based in the original
publication". The phrase "in the original
publication" is about as unambiguous as the Code gets.
If the provisions of Art 73.1.4 were intended to apply to
subsequent type designations, it would have been in a
section dealing with Neotypes and Lectotypes; not
So ... use of 73.1.4 in the description of M.
xylocopae is in no way a distortion of the intent of the
Whether or not this article is "relevant" to this species
(per Stephen's comment) is open to debate, but I do see his
point. However, I still think it is relevant; although
Art. 72.5.6 is probably more directly relevant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> Of Geoff Read
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 5:55 PM
> To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
> Although there is clearly a group who believe that the
fly photo description
> "was unambiguously Code-compliant" under the current
code, this is not
> Read again Markus Moser's eletter "Holotypic ink" in
Science from 2005 (a
> response to a comment and response about the Mangabey
> 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 intention 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.
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