[Taxacom] A nomen nudum in Bombus

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Jun 1 21:16:04 CDT 2021

 Well, that's about what I would expect from you Doug - a completely irrational opinion! Names like Bombus incognitus carry with them useful scientific data, derived from the publication in which they were technically an unavailable name. So, your view, if I understand it, would prevent anyone using the name Bombus incognitus, except perhaps by way of a note that this name has been used in publications, but is technically unavailable. My view, rather, is that we can just use the name, in the usual way, until such time as it gets validated. This is what happens in reality - does anyone remember reality? - for names which are unavailable for more subtle reasons, which nobody may even notice until well down the track. I'm not trying to undermine the ICZN at all, I'm just trying to reconcile it with the reality of what scientists do, and minimise disruption caused by pointless little technicalities of the Code.Cheers, Stephen
    On Wednesday, 2 June 2021, 11:48:38 am NZST, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:  
 On 6/1/21 2:56 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> For unavailable names like Bombus incognitus, for example, I recommend 
> the following:
> Assuming that they refer to a good species without any other name 
> available, use the unavailable name as if it were the valid name for 
> the taxon, until such time as someone validates the name 
> nomenclaturally. Any such validation should use the original name, 
> i.e. Bombus incognitus, rather than disruptively coin a different 
> name. Of course, if the species is inadvertently named again as new, 
> witha different name, then Bombus incognitus will be superseded by the 
> new name, except if the name Bombus incognitus has already gained wide 
> usage, in which case an application for conservation of the name would 
> be appropriate. It must be remembered that many names in current usage 
> are unavailable for somewhat less obvious reasons than Bombus 
> incognitus, e.g. lack of specified type depository, etc. It is far 
> more sensible just to continue using them as if they were valid, until 
> such time as any nomenclatural problems can be resolved (and there is 
> really no hurry or necessity)
I disagree with essentially everything you have suggested above, and 
strongly suggest that others here learn from you exactly what NOT to do. 
It's like you are actively seeking to undermine the principles of the 
ICZN, by making proposals that go directly against what the Code 
specifically tells people they should do.

Give it a rest, please,

Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology      Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314    skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82

Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list