[Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun May 8 17:27:36 CDT 2016
I'm furious over this new article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12180/abstract
They say: However, according to Article 16.4 of the ICZN (1999), only holotypes of extant taxa should be housed in a public scientific collection. Marleyimyia xycolopae is obviously an extant species. Accordingly, its type specimen should be deposited in a scientific collection ... In short, Marshall and Evenhuis published a nomen nudum because their discovery is backed only by a photograph and not by a type specimen.
Art. 16.4 actually says:
16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection.
Extant SPECIMENS, NOT extant SPECIES!!!
The argument offered against the availability of the name Marleyimyia xycolopae is clearly based on a gross misinterpretation of the Code, and is makes the whole article by Santos et al. utterly pointless! I am extremely alarmed that nobody out of 14 authors, at least two reviewers and an editorial team from a supposedly reputable journal could not catch this fundamental error before it went to print. Peer review just doesn't work, it would seem.
More information about the Taxacom