[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
fwelter at gwdg.de
Wed Aug 22 19:54:51 CDT 2018
I answer between the lines below.
As to the question of Art. 10.1.1: This refers to cases in early
zoological literature, where many important monographs were subsequently
published in parts, for example in sheets of 16 or 32 pages which were
issued separately. The subscribers collected the sheets and when all
were complete, they gave the work to the binder. Art. 10.1.1 is based on
Art. 21.5 which clarifies the dating and renders the two sheets separate
It could happen that a page break cutted a description of a new name in
two parts issued at different dates. On p. 32 was printed the name, on
p. 33 issued 2 months later was printed the description that made the
name available - without repeating the name there. Without Art. 10.1.1
none of the two sheets made the name available - p. 32 did not contain
the description and p. 33 did not contain the name. In other cases a
figure caption was published, while the plate was published one year
later. It was clear from the style of the work that data presentation
was to be continued.
The first publication (Li et al. 2009) was completed at the same day, it
was not composed of several parts issued subsequently at different
dates. There was no interruption of data presentation.
Stephen argued that this becomes visible in the second publication
(Ranjith et al. 2015) where the species was not tagged as new.
But in my view the term "interruption" indicates that the first
(earlier) publication will already contain some visible hints in the
style of the work that the data presentation is to be continued. An
interruption is a deliberate action, either provoked by the style of the
work, or by the technical process of publishing. Here we clearly did not
have a deliberately continued data presentation, and hence, no
Had Li et al. 2009 written that the holotype deposit will be presented
in a different publication to be published later, and Ranjith et al.
2015 would have referred to that statement, this would certainly have
met the conditions of Art. 10.1.1.
I left a note in my files that clarifying the meaning of this Article in
the next Code edition was desired.
Am 22.08.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Fernandez, Jose:
> 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?
Wrong. The criteria of availability must be met in the original source,
not in a subsequent source.
> 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?
Only one paragraph was correct.
> [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].
> Thanks a lot for any help you can provide!
> All the best,
> José L. Fernández-Triana, Ph.D.
> Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
> Canadian National Collection of Insects (CNC)
> 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6, CANADA
> Phone: 613-759-1034. Email: jose.fernandez at agr.gc.ca<mailto:jose.fernandez at agr.gc.ca>
> Alternative email : cnc.braconidae at gmail.com<mailto:cnc.braconidae at gmail.com>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 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
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
More information about the Taxacom