[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Aug 22 19:32:07 CDT 2018


Seriously though, there are some issues here with the Code as it stands.

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

Taken too literally, probably most new species descriptions probably fail 16.4.2., in that they lack a "statement of intent" and usually just have something like (BMNH) at the end of the holotype data. This is not a "statement of intent"!

So, I strongly suggest that 16.4.2. be ignored as a trivial technicality, in the hope that it may one day be removed from the Code. Too much confusion and pointless "taxo-lawyering" results from denying availability to a new name based on 16.4.2. It just isn't worth bothering about. The Code should be saving the availability of as many newly proposed names as possible, not trying to invalidate them!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 23/8/18, Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, "Al Newton" <anewton at fieldmuseum.org>
 Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Thursday, 23 August, 2018, 12:04 PM
 
 Aw pfft.
 
 You do not need to remind me to not
 send you any party balloons, Stephen …
 
 :-(
 
 
 From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>
 Reply-To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>
 Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at
 1:49 PM
 To: Alfred Newton <anewton at fieldmuseum.org<mailto:anewton at fieldmuseum.org>>,
 Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>
 Cc: taxacom <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU<mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>>
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about
 availability of a species name
 
 Nah! That is clearly not the intention
 of 10.1.1.
 
 10.1.1. If publication of the data
 relating to a new nominal taxon or a nomenclatural act is
 interrupted and continued at a later date, the name or
 act becomes available only when the
 requirements of the relevant Articles have been met
 
 I agree that 10.1.1. is somewhat vague
 (but no more so than much of the Code!) "Interrupted
 publication" is a term to be understood in a publishing
 sense. At any rate, what kills it in this case is that the
 Ranjith et al. (2015) paper doesn't tag the name as new.
 Just adding a depository to a name that was tagged as new in
 another paper (Li et al., 2009) clearly doesn't count, or
 else you could validate a nomen nudum (tagged as new in some
 old paper, but without description or illustration or
 indication) without tagging it as new, just by adding a
 description and type depository (and biblio reference to the
 old paper which did tag it as new)! But the whole point of
 the recently introduced Code requirement of mandatory
 tagging as new is to highlight new names in the publication
 in which they become available!
 
 Stephen
 
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Thu, 23/8/18, Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>
 wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about
 availability of a species name
 To: "Al Newton" <anewton at fieldmuseum.org<mailto:anewton at fieldmuseum.org>>
 Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>,
 "parahym" <parahym at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:parahym at nhm.ac.uk>>
 Received: Thursday, 23 August, 2018,
 11:36 AM
 Ooooooh!
 I like your thinking! You might have
 something
 there! I think the validity of that
 would depend on the
 definition of “interrupt”, which
 primarily means
 breaking the continuity of something.
 One would have to
 interpret the “continuity” as being
 the "completion
 of all qualifying conditions", such as
 those in Art.
 16.
 -Neal
 Neal L.
 Evenhuis, PhD.
 Senior Entomologist
 Bernice Pauahi Bishop
 Museum
 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI
 96817-2704
 Office: (808) 848-4138
 Fax: (808) 847-8252
 BishopMuseum.org<www.bishopmuseum.org>
 From: Alfred
 Newton <anewton at fieldmuseum.org<mailto:anewton at fieldmuseum.org><mailto:anewton at fieldmuseum.org>>
 Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at
 1:11 PM
 To: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org><mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>
 Cc: "Yanega, Doug" <dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu><mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>>,
 taxacom <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU<mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU><mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>>,
 parahym <parahym at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:parahym at nhm.ac.uk><mailto:parahym at nhm.ac.uk>>
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about
 availability of a species name
 Hi Neal,
 "Work" does not appear in Art. 10,
 except in the Recommendation 10A, and
 "publication of
 the data" could be interpreted as
 referring to
 successive publications.
 I
 think this article is too vague and
 ambiguous, and
 definitely needs to be clarified in a
 new edition of the
 Code.  Likewise, how to fix a
 problem like a missing piece
 of required data in the original
 description should be
 spelled out somewhere.  As I said,
 people have been
 publishing notes adding missing data
 like type depository
 without necessarily meeting all the
 original requirements of
 a new description, in the belief that
 providing the missing
 data is enough to fix the problem.
 Al.
 Alfred F.
 Newton, Curator Emeritus
 Integrative
 Research Center (Insect Division)
 Field
 Museum of Natural History
 1400 South Lake
 Shore Drive
 Chicago, IL 60605 USA
 Telephone (direct):  312-665-7738;
 Fax
 (Zoology):  312-665-7754
 FMNH personal web
 page:  <http://fieldmuseum.org/users/alfred-newton>
 Austral Staphyliniformia databases:
 <<http://www.fieldmuseum.org/peet_staph/>http://archive.fieldmuseum.org/peet_staph/>
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:59
 PM, Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org><mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>
 wrote:
 Al,
 10.1.1 refers to the “work” [= the
 “publication of the data”]. The
 work was not
 interrupted. Only the qualifying
 conditions were
 “incomplete”. 10.1.1 does not come
 into play here.
 -Neal
 Neal L. Evenhuis, PhD.
 Senior Entomologist
 Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI
 96817-2704
 Office: (808) 848-4138
 Fax:
 (808) 847-8252
 BishopMuseum.org<www.bishopmuseum.org<http://www.bishopmuseum.org>>
 From: Taxacom
 <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>>
 on behalf of Alfred Newton <anewton at fieldmuseum.org<mailto:anewton at fieldmuseum.org><mailto:anewton at fieldmuseum.org><mailto:anewton at fieldmuseum.org<mailto:anewton at fieldmuseum.org>>>
 Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at
 12:55 PM
 To: "Yanega, Doug" <dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu><mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu><mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>>>
 Cc: taxacom <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU<mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU><mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU><mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU<mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>>>,
 parahym <parahym at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:parahym at nhm.ac.uk><mailto:parahym at nhm.ac.uk><mailto:parahym at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:parahym at nhm.ac.uk>>>
 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about
 availability of a species name
 Hi Doug,
 What
 about the effect of Art. 10.1.1 on this
 situation?
 10.1.1. If publication of the
 data relating to a new nominal taxon or
 a
 nomenclatural act is interrupted and
 continued
 at a later date, the name or
 act becomes
 available only when the requirements of
 the relevant
 Articles
 have been met.
 If indication of type
 depository was the only missing piece
 of information
 in the original description (Li et al.
 2009),
 and
 Ranjith et al. (2015) supplied that
 information along with a reference to
 the
 original description (which had all the
 other elements),
 then it would
 seem that the name would
 become available from Ranjith et al.
 (with them as
 authors).  This is how I and some
 others have
 used that article (at least
 implicitly) for
 this exact situation, which
 unfortunately is all too
 common.
 Why does this not
 work?
 Al.
 Alfred F. Newton, Curator Emeritus
 Integrative Research Center (Insect
 Division)
 Field Museum of Natural History
 1400 South Lake Shore Drive
 Chicago, IL 60605 USA
 Telephone
 (direct):  312-665-7738; Fax
 (Zoology):  312-665-7754
 FMNH personal web page:  <http://fieldmuseum.org/users/alfred-newton>
 Austral Staphyliniformia databases:
 <
 <http://www.fieldmuseum.org/peet_staph/>
 http://archive.fieldmuseum.org/peet_staph/>
 On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:56
 PM, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu><mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu><mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>>>
 wrote:
 On 8/22/18 2:24 PM,
 Fernandez, Jose wrote:
 Hi
 all,
 I would greatly
 appreciate some help/comments on the
 following topic. I
 have added a "Right?" to the  end
 of
 my paragraphs to mark my questions
 (and NOT
 because I think that I am necessarily
 right!). Hopefully you
 can
 clarify me the situation.
 Microplitis vitellipedis Li,
 Tan & Song was described in 2009
 from China
 The original paper did not state the
 holotype
 depository. Thus, the species
 name is
 unavailable under the current ICZN.
 Right?
 Then in 2015 a taxonomic
 review of the Oriental species of
 Microplitis
 refers to that species. It states that
 the
 holotype is deposited in the
 Hunan
 Agricultural University, China. That
 happens to be the
 institution
 which the authors of the
 original description were affiliated
 with (at
 least at the time of the 2009
 publication). The
 2015 paper, from Indian
 researchers, states
 that "the type specimen of this species
 could not be
 examined" and that they based their
 species description, illustration and
 place
 in the key to Oriental Microplitis
 species on specimens from
 India
 that they actually examined. I am not
 sure if the 2015 authors contacted
 the
 Chinese colleagues to verify that the
 type was indeed
 deposited in the
 Hunan Agricultural
 University, China. But that may be
 beyond the point,
 because what matters is that, if the
 type
 depository was explicitly (and
 clearly)
 stated in the 2015 paper, then that
 would comply with the
 ICZN
 requirements and thus would make the
 name Microplitis vitellipedis Li, Tan
 &
 Song available. Right?
 Assuming that the two previous
 paragraphs are
 correct, then my last
 question is, how to
 refer to that species? I mean the
 species name and
 authors would remain the same, but the
 actual
 date assigned to that name
 should be 2015
 (the moment when the species name
 fulfilled all criteria
 to
 be considered an available name, sensu
 ICZN) and not 2009. Right? Should it
 be then
 Microplitis vitellipedis Li, Tan &
 Song 2015? Is there
 something
 there that I may be missing? Or
 some assumptions that are wrong? Or
 better
 ways to interpret the situation?
 [If someone is interested in
 checking the cited references, I will
 be
 happy to send pdf copies off list (just
 send me
 an email for that). In any
 case the two
 references are: a) Original Description
 Reference: Li,
 Xi-ying; Tan, Ji-cai and Song,
 Dong-bao. 2009.
 A new species of Microplitis
 Foerster
 (Hymenoptera: Braconidae:
 Microgastrinae) of China.
 Entomotaxonomia. 31(3):225-229; b)
 subsequent
 and so far only reference
 known to me:
 Ranjith, A.P.; Rajesh, K.M. and Nasser,
 M.. 2015.
 Taxonomic
 studies on Oriental Microplitis
 Foerster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae,
 Microgastrinae) with description of two
 new
 species from South India.
 Zootaxa.
 3963(3):369-415].
 From the
 information given, the name is still
 unavailable (a nomen
 nudum).
 The relevant
 section of the Code is as follows,
 highlights added:
 ---
 Article
 16. Names published after 1999.
 16.1. All names: intention of authors
 to
 establish new nominal taxa to be
 explicit.
 Every new name published after 1999,
 including new
 replacement
 names (nomina nova), *must be
 explicitly indicated as intentionally
 new*.
 {snip}
 16.4. Species-group names: fixation of
 name-bearing types to be explicit.
 Every new
 specific and subspecific name published
 after 1999, except a
 new
 replacement name (a nomen novum), for
 which the name-bearing type of the
 nominal
 taxon it denotes is fixed automatically
 [Art. 72.7], *must
 be
 accompanied in the original
 publication**
 *
 16.4.1. by
 the explicit fixation of a holotype, or
 syntypes, for the
 nominal taxon [Arts. 72.2, 72.3,
 73.1.1, 73.2
 and Recs. 73A and 73C], and,
 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*
 ---
 Li et al. failed to comply
 with Art. 16.4 (16.4.2), and
 Ranjith et al.
 failed to comply with Art. 16.1
 Had Ranjith et al. stated the species
 was new,
 they would have been given
 authorship, and
 not Li et al.
 Under
 *outdated* editions of the Code, citing
 a prior-published
 description associated with a
 previously
 unavailable name would - under
 some
 circumstances - make that name
 available (often
 inadvertently), but
 the 2000 Code edition
 added Article 16 to prevent this from
 ever happening
 again. *You can no longer accidentally
 make a
 previously published name
 available just by
 citing it*; you are either the author
 of a new name
 yourself, or you are not. In this case,
 no one
 is, and the name is still a
 nomen nudum.
 There are still apparently
 lots of taxonomists familiar with the
 old Code
 editions, and not the most recent
 edition, who
 have never read Article 16;
 it's a very
 long list of papers over the past 18
 years that violate
 16.1
 and/or 16.4, and they continue to be
 published, even in peer-reviewed
 journals.
 Sincerely,
 --
 Doug Yanega      Dept.
 of
 Entomology      
 Entomology Research Museum
 Univ. of California, Riverside, CA
 92521-0314
    skype: dyanega
 phone: (951) 827-4315
 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not
 UCR's)
          
     http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
    "There are some enterprises in
 which a
 careful disorderliness
          is the
 true method" - Herman Melville, Moby
 Dick, Chap. 82
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Send
 Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto: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
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
 Web,
 visit:
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 You can reach the person managing the
 list
 at:
 taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
 Nurturing Nuance while
 Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
 1987-2018.
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Send
 Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto: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
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
 Web, visit:
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 You can reach the person managing the
 list at:
 taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu><mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>
 Nurturing Nuance while
 Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
 1987-2018.
 ________________________________
 This message is only intended for the
 addressee
 named above. Its contents may be
 privileged or otherwise
 protected. Any unauthorized use,
 disclosure or copying of
 this message or its contents is
 prohibited. If you have
 received this message by mistake,
 please notify us
 immediately by reply mail or by collect
 telephone call. Any
 personal opinions expressed in this
 message do not
 necessarily represent the views of the
 Bishop Museum.
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Send
 Taxacom mailing list submissions to: 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
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
 Web, visit:
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 You can reach the person managing the
 list at:
 taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Nurturing Nuance while
 Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
 1987-2018.
 
 
 
 ________________________________
 This message is only intended for the
 addressee named above. Its contents may be privileged or
 otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or
 copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If
 you have received this message by mistake, please notify us
 immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call. Any
 personal opinions expressed in this message do not
 necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list