[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Thu Aug 23 17:55:16 CDT 2018


I noticed that. But better list it in the section of unavailable names, 
with a comment. To avoid confusion.

Francisco

Am 24.08.2018 um 00:49 schrieb Stephen Thorpe:
> "In contrast to Stephen I would not recommend to treat it as an available  name in a checklist. I would list it in the section of unavailable
> names, with a detailed comment explaining the problem"
> 
> Please note that I did NOT simply suggest treating it as an available name in a checklist! I suggested treating it as an available name in a checklist, with a (detailed) comment explaining the problem.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 24/8/18, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:
> 
>   Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
>   To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>   Received: Friday, 24 August, 2018, 10:41 AM
>   
>   Dear José,
>   
>   You are not stupid. It is not the first time
>   since 2000 that this
>   happened. The problem
>   is already known and I have observed awareness
>   that some new regulations of the 4th edition
>   Code led to undesired
>   effects. In the next
>   edition of the Code I assume that better solutions
>   will be found, and that such problems can be
>   fixed more easily,
>   solutions that would
>   conserve original authorships and dates.
>   
>   The name is currently unavailable. It could be
>   made available in a
>   relatively short
>   corrigendum, in which the criteria of availability are
>   met. It is not necessary to repeat the entire
>   description and republish
>   figures, because
>   the Code allows to give a bibliographical reference to
>   the description published by Li et al. 2009
>   (Art. 13.1.2).
>   
>   The Code has
>   a section that is called Appendix A - Code of Ethics. Such
>   
>   a case is not directly described there, but
>   I would compare it with Art.
>   3 following
>   which a new replacement name for a junior homonym should not
>   
>   be published without informing the original
>   authors of the homonymous
>   name and give
>   them some time (a year or so) to establish a new
>   replacement name.
>   It would be
>   fair and good practice to inform the authors of the 2009
>   paper that they could ask the journal to
>   publish such a corrigendum to
>   make that
>   name available. They can also ask the ICZN Commission for
>   
>   advice how to do it correctly. If the
>   journal refuses to publish such a
>   Corrigendum, the Commission can help finding a
>   solution. Commissioners
>   could also
>   cross-check the final version. In this case the name and the
>   
>   authorship would be the same, just the date
>   of publication would differ.
>   
>   For reading the Code it is sometimes necessary
>   to have some insider or
>   background
>   knowledge how certain Articles must be understood. Like
>   every
>   legal work it is not written in the
>   style of a service guide. It is
>   desirable
>   to improve that.
>   
>   In
>   contrast to Stephen I would not recommend to treat it as an
>   available
>   name in a checklist. I would list
>   it in the section of unavailable
>   names,
>   with a detailed comment explaining the problem.
>   
>   Cheers
>   Francisco
>   
>   
>   
>   -----
>   Francisco Welter-Schultes
>   
>   Am 23.08.2018 um 16:24 schrieb Fernandez,
>   Jose:
>   > 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.
>   >
>   _______________________________________________
>   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