[Taxacom] Science 24 Feb 2017 letter: Photos belong in taxonomic Code

igor pavlinov ipvl2008 at mail.ru
Thu Feb 23 22:52:12 CST 2017


it seems to me that one thing is supplementing real specimens with its colored photos or movies to preserve their color patterns lost after preservation in museum collection. And different thing is the photos or movies of the specimens never delivered to museum collection, be they taken from alive or just lost specimens. Both these photos and movies are actually "virtual" specimens - but are they the same as the "real" ones with respect of the Code application in case of subsequent revisions?

This issue includes also some other points, for instance vocalization records. Can these be used as type specimens without standard vouchers?

Another point is voucherization of barcode sequences: are references to photos of respective animals or plants forbidden to be removed from nature (i.e. protected) enoughth to verify, upon a need, there taxonomic allocation?

Igor


- - -
Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
Leading Researcher
Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University
ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6
125009 Moscow 
Russia
http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov_eng1.htm

>Пятница, 24 февраля 2017, 7:07 +03:00 от "Frank T. Krell" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>:
>
>Such letters are not reviewed, only edited.
>Frank Krell
>
>From: John Grehan [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 8:59 PM
>To: Frank T. Krell < Frank.Krell at dmns.org >
>Cc: Dilrukshan Wijesinghe < dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com >; Taxacom Mailinglist < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >;  arsg at unicamp.br
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Science 24 Feb 2017 letter: Photos belong in taxonomic Code
>
>So if the issue is that obvious why did the reviewers for such a 'prestigious' journal like Science miss that?
>
>John Grehan
>
>On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Frank T. Krell <Frank.Krell at dmns.org<mailto: Frank.Krell at dmns.org >> wrote:
>The authors of this letter write that the Code should allow photographs and movies to be eligible for designation as primary types. "This change would allow valid species descriptions [...] without violating the Code."
>
>May I point out that describing new species on the basis of photographs or movies does *not* violate the Code. It is just that the specimens shown in those media are the types, not the photographs or movies themselves. In these cases the types are not preserved and, in most cases, are deemed to be lost. But this is still Code-compliant.
>
>It may violate good taxonomic practice though - in Cases where types could have been preserved.
>
>Please read the Code, people. There is definitely no revision of the Code needed to accommodate photo-based descriptions.
>On the contrary, I would say that the Code should more strongly discourage descriptions without preserved type specimens when type specimens could easily be preserved and remain diagnostic in the preserved stage.
>
>Frank
>
>
>Dr. Frank-Thorsten Krell
>
>Senior Curator of Entomology, Editor-in-Chief
>Commissioner and Councillor, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
>Department of Zoology
>Denver Museum of Nature & Science
>2001 Colorado Blvd
>Denver, Colorado  80205-5798 , U.S.A.
>Frank.krell at dmns.org<mailto: Frank.krell at dmns.org >
>Phone 303.370.8244<tel:303.370.8244>
>Fax 303.331.6492<tel:303.331.6492>
>http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >] On Behalf Of Dilrukshan Wijesinghe
>Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 7:55 PM
>To: Taxacom Mailinglist <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >>
>Subject: [Taxacom] Science 24 Feb 2017 letter: Photos belong in taxonomic Code
>
>There is a Letter by André Rinaldo Senna Garrafoni & André Victor Lucci Freitas in Science 24 February 2017 [Vol. 355, Issue 6327], p. 805, titled "Photos belong in taxonomic Code". The authors advocate the use of photos & movies to serve as types, especially for meiofaunal organisms (e.g. gastrotrichs), specimens of which lose diagnostic features after preservation.
>Priyantha
> D. P. Wijesinghe
>dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com<mailto: dpwijesinghe at yahoo.com >
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:  http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>
>Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:  http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>
>Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:  http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>
>Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.



More information about the Taxacom mailing list