[Taxacom] Availability of Nephilingis Kuntner, 2013

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Thu Aug 22 13:43:41 CDT 2019

I have not followed this discussion in detail either, but I did want to point out one particular peculiarity with the Code, concerning this point raised by Evan: 

> 3) Along the same line of thought, it needs to be clarified if the description or
> definition of the taxon that appears in the Appendix (but not in the paper)
> could be considered as "accompanying" the name sensu Art.
> 13.1.1, or the citation of the appendix in the original publication could be
> considered IMO "a bibliographic reference to such a published statement"
> sensu 13.1.2.

The full text of Art. 13.1.2 is:
"13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, even if the statement is contained in a work published before 1758, or in one that is not consistently binominal, or in one that has been suppressed by the Commission (unless the Commission has ruled that the work is to be treated as not having been published [Art. 8.7])"

The key relevant point here is that the published statement to which a bibliographic reference points does not itself need to be published in the sense of the Code.  The wording here is incongruent because in most cases when the Code uses the word "published", it means "published in the sense of the code".  But in this case, it refers to a "published statement" that, for various reasons may not be published in the sense of the Code.  This is a technical issue that needs to be addressed in the 5th Edition of the Code.

*HOWEVER*, and more to the point....

This Article lists specific types of works not published in the sense of the Code (i.e., pre-1758, non-binominal, suppressed) that can be referenced bibliographically to fulfill this requirement, and also indicates one type (ruled by Commission as not published) where it cannot fulfill this requirement. There are many other reasons why a work is not considered published that are not explicitly mentioned here (including electronic works that fail to fulfill Art. 8.5, as well as exclusions listed in Art. 9). 

To me, it is unclear whether works falling into such categories of otherwise non-published works, and not explicitly mentioned do, or do not, fulfill the requirements of Art. 13.1.2, when cited bibliographically.

I think the example of this thread is an excellent case upon which this question ought to be discussed.  Speaking as someone who was involved rather intimately with the process of drafting the Amendment for electronic publication, I'm fairly certain that this question was never raised during that time (though perhaps someone can correct me on this point).  My gut feeling is that if it had, I would have interpreted failure to meet criteria for electronic publication as among the "exceptions" through which a "published" statement could be bibliographically referenced (in fulfillment of Art. 13.1.2), in the same league as pre-1758, non-binominal, and suppressed).  On the other hand, I can also see a rational argument for why non-compliant electronic works (like an electronic Appendix) should *not* be among the exceptions (i.e., in which case Art. 13.1.2 would not be fulfilled in this situation).


Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator | Associate Zoologist | Dive Safety Officer
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org

Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list