[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
adamcot at cscoms.com
Thu Aug 23 06:48:14 CDT 2018
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "Adam Cotton" <adamcot at cscoms.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
> (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.
Here again I disagree. Article 16.4.2 is different to other Code articles.
Other articles use the phrase "statement in words", whereas 16.4.2 only says
"statement". As a result I do not think that the statement has to be a
complete phrase or sentence.
Most papers will give a lits of acronyms used, such as "BMNH = Natural
History Museum, London" or at least include such in brackets somewhere in
the text. If the information about the holotype states: "Holotype blah blah
[data] (BMNH)" that clearly means that the specimen is in BMNH, thus there
is a statement of location of the holotype included already, rather than
requiring a statement in words which would be necessary for instance when
giving the purported difference between the new taxon and previously
described related taxa.
I do get your point that the specimen may have been borrowed from BMNH for
purposes of the research leading to the publication, but it is unlikely that
the author would not state this fact.
More information about the Taxacom