[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name

Stephen Thorpe 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.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
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>;
 "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. 
 
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
 to: 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
 
 Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
 Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list