[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Aug 23 18:01:06 CDT 2018


Confusion, one way or the other, cannot be avoided in such cases!


--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 24/8/18, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Friday, 24 August, 2018, 10:55 AM
 
 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