[Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy
calabar.john at gmail.com
Sun May 8 21:39:57 CDT 2016
Why not write to the journal and volunteer your expertise?
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Hi all,
> I'm furious over this new article:
> 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
> 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.
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
More information about the Taxacom