[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name

Adam Cotton adamcot at cscoms.com
Thu Aug 23 02:24:37 CDT 2018


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: "Al Newton" <anewton at fieldmuseum.org>; "Neal Evenhuis" 
<neale at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name


> 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
>
>


I disagree with Stephen's interpretation of 16.4.2 here.

"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"

I understand that the first part must be taken in 2 separate sections

1: "intent that they will be"
2: "(or are)"
deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location 
of that collection.

So if a specimen has a statement "(BMNH)" in the description this is stating 
that the specimen currently IS deposited in BMNH. It is only in the case 
that the specimen is not yet deposited in a museum that there must be a 
statement of "intent" to deposit. "BMNH" already is a known name and 
location of the depository, and thus fulfils the second part.

I agree that it is better to include more than just the acronym for clarity, 
but when appended to a holotype's data it is a statement of depository in 
itself.

Adam. 



More information about the Taxacom mailing list