[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Sep 21 22:56:31 CDT 2016
Just to be clear, descriptions *never* required "dead bodies". This is nothing new. Also, it is not a nomen nudum. A nomen nudum is a name published without a description/diagnosis or illustration. I assume you mean that it fails to be an available name for some reason (I can think of two candidate reasons in this case). However, it will probably be treated as an available name, as it only fails on a technicality, and so do a great many names in big journals, so the Code will probably have to "loosen up" at some stage. Most importantly, I am at a total and complete loss as to why you think this paper has any relevance to "without dead bodies". The description includes details and illustrations of the internal genitalia, etc.! Why in the name of heck do you refer to this case as a "dirty deed"?? I think that it must be you who are confused ...
On Thu, 22/9/16, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: [Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa
To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Thursday, 22 September, 2016, 3:40 PM
It seems taxonomy fraudsters have
cottoned on the fact that
descriptions no longer require "dead bodies". A description
of a new
Dermestidae was published in Entomology and Applied Science
Fortunately the author was pretty lazy and it ended up being
nudum. Reference to original article and link to article
the dirty deed below.
Original article: Description of a new species of the genus
Thaumaglossa (COLEOPTERA: Dermestidae: Megatominae) of the
Region of Russia.
Entomology and Applied Science Letters, 2016, 3, 4: 12-14.
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Injecting Intellectual Liquidity for 29 years.
More information about the Taxacom