[Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

Mon Apr 14 02:16:11 CDT 2014

I would agree with Stephen if this were an isolated case. However, bear in mind that in the case of this particular author we are dealing with approximately 600 new names by now. Of the species-group names he has coined, we can rest assured that for the majority of type designations, the procedure used was exactly as for Macrochelys (some others were based on literature descriptions of the types, only a very few of his earliest descriptions involved types he had actually seen). Under those circumstances, if the herpetological community wishes to retain any degree of sanity in herpetological taxonomy and nomenclature, it has little option but to choose what Frank Krell very aptly called a "reaction of the community [that] might not be Code-compliant, but ethically and scientifically understandable and preferable". For that reason, I would bet good money on the next editions of the various US field guides and standard species lists making reference to Macrochelys apalachicolae and M. suwanniensis, not M. maxhoseri or M. muscati, irrespective of what ultimately transpires about the availability of the two latter names under the Code.

We need to remember that, to most taxonomists, the Code is a tool with the function of  assisting communication and information retrieval, not an end in itself.

Best regards,

Wolfgang
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: 14 April 2014 02:34
To: Weakley, Alan; Fred Schueler; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

Just to reiterate what I consider to be the most important point in all of this mess:

Proper procedure would have been for Thomas et al. to have petitioned the ICZN for an official ruling on the availability of Hoser's names, and to have maintained currect usage (i.e. kept using Hoser's names) until such time, if ever, that the ICZN ruled them to be unavailable. The ruling has to be in the form of a citable official publication in the BZN. It is no good just asking a commissioner or two what their personal view(s) is/are (it is a commission for a reason).

Cheers,

Stephen

________________________________
From: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Fred Schueler <bckcdb at istar.ca>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, 14 April 2014 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

I hesitate to wade in, and I am a botanist, so This Code is not My Code.  ;-)  But.  It appears to me that what Mr. Hoser did was to read the literature, determine from it that there were 3 clades that plausibly warranted separate taxonomic recognition, that they were geographically separate, and then cite as a holotype a sight record by someone else based strictly on its geographic location.  If it was in the Suwannee River drainage, it had to be Clade B.  If it was in the Apalachicola River drainage, it had to be Clade C.  Maybe (or maybe not) what he did was okay by the current code (I'll not try to research that), but it seems that it is a bad idea for a holotype to be allowed to be a second-hand sight record, in which the naming author is basing it strictly on geography.  Isn't the fundamental reason for a holotype (and various inferior sorts of types) to FIX (meaning make stationary and concrete) the meaning of a name in a way that a mere
 description cannot?  [I'll leave aside for the moment the other large issue of the circumscription of the taxon around the point represented by the holotype].  If a holotype has no physical existence, and even no graphical existence, but is a second hand sight record, how can that be gone back to in the future by our successors and consulted and evaluated in a manner which FIXES the meaning of the name?  This essentially amounts to the holotype being a lat-long?  but distributions change for natural and anthropogenic reasons?

Alan Weakley
Director and Curator, UNC Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina Botanical Garden
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Dept. of Biology and Curriculum in Ecology and the Environment
Campus Box 3280, Coker Hall 419
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3280
919.619.1101 (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 7:00 PM
To: Fred Schueler; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

specimen, n.
An example of an animal, or a fossil or work of an animal, or of a part of these. See Article 72.5 for the kinds of specimen eligible to be name-bearing types of nominal species-group nominal taxa.

72.5. Eligibility as name-bearing types. Only the following are eligible to be a name-bearing type, or part of a name-bearing type, of a nominal species-group taxon:
72.5.1. an animal, or any part of an animal, or an example of the fossilized work of an animal, or of the work of an extant animal if the name based on it was established before 1931; 72.5.2. a colony of animals that exists in nature as a single entity, derived by asexual or vegetative multiplication from a single individual (e.g. a colony of cnidarians, such as corals), or part of such a colony; 72.5.3. in the case of fossils, a natural replacement, natural impression, natural mould, or natural cast of an animal or colony, or part of either; 72.5.4. in extant species of protistans, one or more preparations of directly related individuals representing differing stages in the life cycle (a hapantotype) [Art. 73.3]; 72.5.5. a preparation for microscope examination (e.g. a "type slide") containing one or more individual organisms, in which the name-bearing types are clearly indicated and identifiable.
Recommendation 72C. Marking of important individuals. Whenever possible, authors establishing new nominal species-group taxa based upon microscope preparations containing more than one specimen (a "type slide") should mark distinctly the locations of specimens which are considered to be of crucial importance in demonstrating the taxonomic characters.
72.5.6. In the case of a nominal species-group taxon based on an illustration or description, or on a bibliographic reference to an illustration or description, the name-bearing type is the specimen or specimens illustrated or described (and not the illustration or description itself).

Note that I am not saying that the observational record is the holotype. I am saying that the individual turtle that was observed is the holotype. It is analogous to 72.5.6., though the Code does not explicitly mention a case of a nominal species-group taxon based on an observational record. The Code doesn't explicitly rule this out. The individual turtle has simply been designated (specified) by way of the observational record. The Code is silent on what modes of specification are allowable, so all are ..

Stephen

________________________________
From: Fred Schueler <bckcdb at istar.ca>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Monday, 14 April 2014 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

On 4/13/2014 5:05 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> None of this is relevant! Observational records or not, there is nothing in the Code which clearly invalidates Hoser's holotype designations! People are reading into the Code what suits their agenda, and not what is actually written!

* How is "specimen" defined in the Code? It seems to me that a Bird
that's captured, handled and photographed or drawn, and released with
the recognition that it's part of a systematic investigation, and as a
substitute for a preserved specimen (in the usual sense) is different
from a basking Turtle that's merely snapped as a record of "occurrence."

fred.
------------------------------------------------------------
          Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
          RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
  on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
    (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
The 2014 Bishops Mills Calendar Festival:
Fred:
http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-fred-calendar-for-2014.html
- data input
Aleta: http://www.lulu.com/content/14204755- paintings
Jennifer:
http://www.zazzle.com/free_range_wall_calendar-158319768903951661-
free ranging livestock

------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org/

Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org/

Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.

Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity No. 1141565

Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor.

This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office.