[Taxacom] A nomen nudum in Bombus

Roland Bergman-Sun kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 01:24:32 CDT 2021


I'm sure that in REALITY -- which I remember with fondness mixed with
disillusion -- there is no chance whatsoever that using a name that is
known to be a nomen nudum as if there are no problems at all will
never lead to someone else naming the species something else. In
REALITY, this will never mean that the scientific data is therefore
tied to two different names, the synonymy of which will be understood
and discussed only by the small fraction of bumblebee researchers that
are taxonomists or taxonomy-adjacent. I am sure that the next step
will never be confusion, when some groups use one name and others use
the other name, and thus talk past each other, and I am sure this
confusion would never lead to something as absurd as this being used
as another example of how taxonomists are just ruining things, and
that conservationists NEED to step in to sort things out because it
can't go on like this any more. I'm sure there is no risk of something
like this in REALITY. I mean, who has ever heard of a case of
taxonomic confusion because different research groups use different
names for the same taxon leading to problems downstream in
non-taxonomic research? I think if we did a raise-of-hands here, no
one would ever have heard of something so bizarre in REALITY; this
must just be a perverse construct of my mind, just to spite you. In
REALITY, every researcher is perfectly cognizant of the code and what
it means, and leap head-first at the chance of getting the opportunity
to use a new name for the species they thought they had studied and
published on for ten years. Ecologist and conservationist friends of
mine just love this sort of thing; they are constantly asking me if
the species they are working on could be renamed, because it's more
convenient to use a new name than to have to google scholar research
on the old name and have to actually sit down and read what others
have done. Better to start with a blank slate and save time. It's not
like species names are associated with something scientifically
meaningful anyway; taxonomy is just a way to keep pedants and
busybodies and grumpy old farts away from real research where they
could actually do some harm.

Cheers,
Unreality

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:16 AM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  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)
>               https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
>   "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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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