[Taxacom] manuscript name question

Geoffrey Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Sat Oct 10 18:50:51 CDT 2015


I see chapter 16 as advice for taxonomists looking at prior work. Advice
for taxonomists creating new taxa is in chapter 4 on availability. If
pictures-only are code compliant the permission to do this should be in
chapter 4. Maybe this will be in the next code, but this current code
doesn't allow it.

I totally agree with you that 73.1.4 applies to looking at existing types
and thus, I maintain, NOT to when new taxa are being created.  As Moser
said, it deals with a type now missing, but happily the situation is
recoverable somewhat because the original author also indicated it was the
type he had illustrated, and we now get what information we can from the
drawing.  The article shouldn't be used for new taxa. That is the lifting
out of context (of unfortunate now-convenient wording) that people are
uneasy with.


On Sun, October 11, 2015 6:22 am, Richard Pyle wrote:
> 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 can be."
> Nothing in the Code is absolutely unambiguous ... in the sense that
> nothing in the universe is absolutely unambiguous.
> 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
> Holotypes.
> So ... use of 73.1.4 in the description of  M. xylocopae is in no way a
> distortion of the intent of the Article.
> 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.
> Aloha,
> Rich
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
>> Of Geoff Read
>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 5:55 PM
>> To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
>> Hi,
>> Although there is clearly a group who believe that the fly photo
>> 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 picture,
>> under the doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5744.2163c
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2163.3/reply#sci_el_2652?s
>> id=deb7fe6e-5527-45a6-b6f7-af1120d2750c
>> 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"

More information about the Taxacom mailing list