[Taxacom] A nomen nudum in Bombus

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jun 2 05:17:31 CDT 2021


 
Andrew,What are you talking about, man? That question makes no sense. The form of the question is "how can you use X as if it were Y, when it isn't Y?" Someone could use a counterfeit note as if it were valid money. The fact that it isn't valid money doesn't stop someone from using it as if it were. Of course, there are actual problems using counterfeit money, so the analogy only goes so far, but there are no actual problems using an unavailable name as if it were valid. What problems could there be? The ICZN aren't going to kick down your door in the middle of the night and arrest you for non-Code-compliance! Let's focus on a hypothetical example: A e-only publication contains the description of a new species. The description is extremely detailed and lavishly illustrated, there are years worth of ecological data and pretty much everything you could possibly ask for from a new species description. However, no archive was specified in the ZooBank preregistration, so the new name is technically unavailable. I have no problem with anyone who wishes to fix that problem in whatever way validates the name, but there is no hurry and we can happily still use the name as if it were valid until such time, if ever, that the problem is fixed. It is a minor technicality only. It is of no real importance. The important thing is that we have a name (albeit an unavailable name) to use as a handle for a taxon which has been described and illustrated in excellent fashion, with lots of useful data. The only problem which could arise is if someone renames the same species with a different name. Then the situation will require a resolution, but it is still not a major problem: either the new name replaces the older unavailable name, or the latter is conserved by petition to the ICZN. What I am trying to point out here is that unavailable names aren't like "The Scottish Play", where there is a curse involved in saying their names! We can still use unavailable names as if they were available, pending a resolution to any nomenclatural problems, and there is no hurry for such resolution.Cheers, Stephen    On Wednesday, 2 June 2021, 09:50:31 pm NZST, Andrew Whittington <awhittington at flyevidence.co.uk> wrote:  
 
 #yiv8915024110 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}Stephen,
How can you "use an unavailable name as if it were valid" when it isn't valid?
Kind regards,Andrew
====o0o====​
Andrew E WhittingtonConsultant Entomologist, PhD, FRES MCSFSZootaxa Editor: Diptera & small orders of insectsZooNova Entomology Editor
https://flyevidence.co.uk/ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0465-1172
https://www.linkedin.com/company/flyevidence/





From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: 02 June 2021 10:26
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Douglas Yanega <dyanega at gmail.com>; Andrew Whittington <awhittington at flyevidence.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A nomen nudum in Bombus Andrew,Curiously, you have read much into what I wrote which simply isn't there! I'm somewhat baffled by that! Obviously, the name should not have been proposed in a non-Code-compliant way to begin with, that much is a given. But it was so proposed, so I'm simply talking about what to do about it after the fact. I'm not saying anything to discourage anyone from being Code compliant! I'm simply saying that we can continue to use an unavailable name as if it were valid, without any real problems. The alternative is to pretend that the name doesn't exist, which is ludicrous! We simply need to note that TECHNICALLY, the name is unavailable, in much the same way that I think botanists do for their nom. illeg. names. What possible reason could there be to not use a name for an otherwise undescribed species, just because that name is technically unavailable? One hopes that, at some point, sooner or later, that name will be validated and will become the "official" name for the species. There is simply no problem here!Cheers, Stephen
On Wednesday, 2 June 2021, 09:14:17 pm NZST, Andrew Whittington <awhittington at flyevidence.co.uk> wrote:

#yiv8915024110 #yiv8915024110 --#yiv8915024110x_yiv8196109872 p {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv8915024110 I'm with Doug on this one Stephen,
Of course nobody can prevent use of the name after it has been proposed - but you entirely miss the point that the name should not have been published without proper adherence to the ICZN protocols in the first place.
These are not pointless technicalities of the code, but rather lack of adherence to a set of agreed principles that have been developed by the scientific community to serve a very clear purpose. What scientist do and what they should do are clearly two different things and we should be encouraging adherence to the protocols, not dodging around them for convenience.
Kind regards,Andrew
====o0o====​
Andrew E WhittingtonConsultant Entomologist, PhD, FRES MCSFSZootaxa Editor: Diptera & small orders of insectsZooNova Entomology Editor
https://flyevidence.co.uk/ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0465-1172
https://www.linkedin.com/company/flyevidence/





From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: 02 June 2021 03:16
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Douglas Yanega <dyanega at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A nomen nudum in Bombus 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