[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Aug 23 16:19:12 CDT 2018


Hi Jose,
Having now seen the original reference (Li, Tan & Song, 2009), there is indeed no indication whatsoever of a type depository, so, TECHNICALLY, the name Microplitis vitellipedis is unavailable from Li, Tan & Song (2009), and has not, to our knowledge, been subsequently validated. If it were to be validated, it would, I reiterate, become available from both the date and the authorship of the validating reference. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, since it will only cause confusion and detract from the fact that the description by Li, Tan & Song (2009) was probably fine taxonomically (although the paper does start off badly with the first paragraph revised and repeated!) Given that the Code requirements relating to statements of type depository are somewhat vague and overly onerous if interpreted too strictly anyway, it seems such a pointless waste of time to make a big deal of these cases. My strong advice would be to treat Microplitis vitellipedis Li, Tan & Song, 2009 as if it were an available name, but just add a footnote to the effect that it may be technically unavailable by Art. 16.4.2. This strategy has the advantage of showing that you are aware of the problem, but without making too much of a very minor technicality.
Cheers,
Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 24/8/18, Fernandez, Jose <Jose.Fernandez at AGR.GC.CA> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
 To: "parahym (parahym at nhm.ac.uk)" <parahym at nhm.ac.uk>, "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Friday, 24 August, 2018, 2:24 AM
 
 Hi again,
 
 First of all, I want to say THANKS A LOT to all
 of you that have so far replied to my questions. I really
 appreciate that and the time you have spent doing it. 
 
 Based on the discussion so
 far, the consensus is that the species name is still
 unavailable -although I see different interpretations of the
 pertinent articles that have been cited so far; if anything,
 it seems as there is ambiguity in the Code there (not a
 criticism of the ICZN per se, just an observation after
 reading the articles AND the opinions of those who replied
 to my questions).
 
 So now I
 only have a single question to ask: Is there a way that that
 name could ever be made available? Could you confirm that a)
 there is NO way to make that Microplitis vitellipedis name
 available by just clearly stating the depository in a
 subsequent paper; and b) indeed the ONLY way to make that
 species name available would be publishing a subsequent
 paper that includes all ICZN requirements to make such name
 available (a process  that implies a new author and year of
 publication for that species name)? 
 
 The only reason I have asked all those
 questions is because I am about to finish a world checklist
 of the Braconidae subfamily Microgastrinae (~2,800 valid
 names, a couple hundred names in other categories). If the
 name Microplitis vitellipedis could only be made available
 by the option b) cited above, then I would simply list that
 name in a section I already have for unavailable names. I
 have no intention to make species names from other authors
 available, unless it could be done via the option a)
 mentioned above. Thanks again for any advice you can provide
 about that.
 
 [And, please,
 allow me a stupid comment to end my message. I realize the
 importance of regulations and so on. But I still see a
 species that was a) described, compared to putative close
 species, and illustrated (drawings) in 2009, b)
 re-described, placed within a key to all Oriental species of
 Microplitis, and illustrated (color pictures) in 2015, c) a
 technicality (the authors of the original description
 probably forgot to add the depository, or just assumed that
 it was implicit that it was their institution, or just were
 not aware of the new Code regulations, or whatever) now
 prevents that species name to be available. Yes, there is no
 justification for the authors not stating clearly the
 depository in the original description, and I am no here to
 defend or represent the authors in any way or shape. But, if
 the depository indeed could be confirmed to be the Hunan
 Agricultural University, China, and a subsequent note could
 be published clearly stating that (preferably, done by the
 original authors), would not that be a better solution than
 any person using the available descriptions, stating a
 depository and getting credited for the species name? Where
 regulations and common sense meet? Or am I just too stupid
 to fully understand the logic behind those Articles? If so,
 I apologize in advance!]. 
 
 Cheers,
 Jose
 
 --
 José L.
 Fernández-Triana, Ph.D.
 Research Scientist,
 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
 Canadian
 National Collection of Insects (CNC) 
 960
 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6, CANADA 
 Phone: 613-759-1034. Email: jose.fernandez at agr.gc.ca
 
 Alternative email : cnc.braconidae at gmail.com
 
   
  
 
 
 -----Original
 Message-----
 From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Fernandez, Jose
 Sent:
 August-22-18 5:24 PM
 To: parahym (parahym at nhm.ac.uk);
 taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Subject: [Taxacom] Questions about availability
 of a species name
 
 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].
 
 Thanks a
 lot for any help you can provide!
 All the
 best,
 Jose
 
 --
 José L. Fernández-Triana,
 Ph.D.
 Research Scientist, Agriculture and
 Agri-Food Canada
 Canadian National
 Collection of Insects (CNC)
 960 Carling
 Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6, CANADA
 Phone: 613-759-1034. Email: jose.fernandez at agr.gc.ca<mailto:jose.fernandez at agr.gc.ca>
 Alternative email : cnc.braconidae at gmail.com<mailto:cnc.braconidae at gmail.com>
 
 
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 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.
 _______________________________________________
 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