[Taxacom] Return of the digital taxa

Stephen Thorpe 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
 a nomen
 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 mailing list