[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
Dr Brian Taylor
dr.brian.taylor at ntlworld.com
Thu Aug 23 01:13:30 CDT 2018
Without being nasty - a publication is a publication and the ICZN is not a
legal entity/law but a convention. Hijacking other peoples work is at least
On 22/08/2018, 22:56, "Doug Yanega" <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
16.1. All names: intention of authors to establish new nominal taxa to
be explicit. Every new name published after 1999, including new
> names (nomina nova), *must be explicitly indicated as
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
> type of the nominal taxon it denotes is fixed automatically
> *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
> circumstances - make that name available (often inadvertently), but
> 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.
> 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
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
> of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
> 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
"There are some enterprises in
> which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville,
> Moby Dick, Chap. 82
> Mailing List
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
You can reach the
> person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
More information about the Taxacom