[Taxacom] Nonsense in ZooKeys (photo based taxonomy again)

Geoff Read gread at actrix.gen.nz
Mon Aug 28 00:40:56 CDT 2017

There also seems to have been a failure of fact checking during reviewing.
Okay authors are always responsible for content, not reviewers, but still,
I would have pointed this below out as not correct.

As the example of an apparent previous case of a typeless species the
authors say on their p.137 that Yonow "... made mention that this species
[it was nudibranch Nembrotha yonowae] is [a] nomen nudum". However, she
did not say that. She only says that "taxonomic identity of [Nembrotha
yonowae] cannot be confirmed".  They represent this case in a misleading
way as if the next authors they mention had to fix a nomen nudum.  They do
not do that, and those authors regarded the species as valid from the
original description.


On Mon, August 28, 2017 8:44 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> An article was published a few days ago in ZooKeys, on the subject of
> photo based taxonomy. From the abstract:
> 'If a taxonomist has omitted to compare the new typeless species with the
> known species externally similar to it, the latter cannot be diagnosed and
> its name in that case becomes nomen nudum.'
> Presumably they mean the FORMER cannot be diagnosed. By "typeless
> species", they just mean no preserved specimen as type. Anyway, it seems
> that they have made a rather creative interpretation of Article 13.1.1.
> If anyone can make much sense of the rest of the article, which reads like
> jibberish to me, then I'd be very interested to hear it!
> Let's stop filling the world scientific literature with nonsense, shall
> we?

More information about the Taxacom mailing list