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

Mon Apr 14 02:25:34 CDT 2014

Unless the ICZN rules that Hoser's names are unavailable, they cannot be ignored (without jeopardising the communication and information retrieval function of zoological nomenclature)

Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 14/4/14, Wolfgang Wuster <w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk> wrote:

 Subject: RE: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Received: Monday, 14 April, 2014, 7:16 AM

 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.