[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Aug 23 04:21:34 CDT 2018
(BMNH) isn't even a statement, but is at most an indication that the specimen is from BMNH, but the describing author may have the option of depositing the type elsewhere, even if it is from BMNH, so we cannot assume that the specimen will end up in the same collection from which the author received it.
> "BMNH" already is a known name and location of the depository, and thus fulfils the second part
No it does not! The Code requires a a STATEMENT indicating the name and location of that collection! This is often given in the methods section of a paper, but sometimes not.
On Thu, 23/8/18, Adam Cotton <adamcot at cscoms.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Thursday, 23 August, 2018, 7:24 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: "Al Newton" <anewton at fieldmuseum.org>;
<neale at bishopmuseum.org>
Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 7:32
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
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
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
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