[Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and the perils of fast taxonomy
gread at actrix.gen.nz
Mon May 9 22:00:03 CDT 2016
You could write privately to the lead author, if you haven't already (I'm
resisting involving him here by cc).
I don't see much wrong with the general sentiments expressed in the
article. However the two sentences top of page 3 misrepresent the code.
Take them away and the authors are just expressing opinions on taxonomic
practice. It may be possible to change an obvious factual error as the
article is not yet in a print issue. Or the authors could withdraw the
article and resubmit.
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of John
Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
Sent: 09 May 2016 14:39
To: Stephen Thorpe
Cc: samarsha at uoguelph.ca; taxacom
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] I'm furious over article: On typeless species and
the perils of fast taxonomy
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.
More information about the Taxacom