Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

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

Philipp Wagner philipp.wagner.zfmk at uni-bonn.de
Tue Apr 15 06:13:53 CDT 2014 

Stephen,

I dont agree with you on this, because the code says that:

16.4 "Every new specific (...)name published after 1999, 
(...)for which the name-bearing type of the nominal taxon 
it denotes is fixed automatically [Art. 72.7], must be 
accompanied in the original publication
16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype, (...)and,
16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant 
specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or 
are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating 
the name and location of that collection (see 
Recommendation 16C)."

For me this implies that a taxon which is based on an 
observation is not valid, because even if the specimen was 
fixes as a holotype, it is hard to realize that it will be 
captured again to inventory it in a collection.

Furthermore, article 13.1.1 reads that: "To be available, 
every new name (...) must be accompanied by a description 
or definition that states in words characters that are 
purported to differentiate the taxon, (...)".

So, if you have observed the holotype by your own, I would 
agree that it is possible to give characters of the taxon, 
but if the name-bearing type was just a secondary 
observation, how it is than possible to give characters of 
a taxon, if you have no idea of what the name-bearing type 
is? And I would suggest that the characters of the taxon 
should be based on its name-bearing type. Otherwise that 
would result in a taxonomic chaos if you do that with more 
than 600 vertebrate names.


Finally, I cannot follow your argument that ignoring Hoser 
will result in a taxonomic chaos, because than everybody 
can be ignored. It is still under discussion in the herp 
community if Hoser's names are valid or not, but the 
entire community (probably excluding one or two people) 
agrees that we should ignore his names. I am very sure 
that this will happen only again if somebody else like 
Hoser steps over the border of ethics.
On the other hand, producing more than 600 names by naming 
all unnamed lineages of phylogenetic trees, often 
monotypical lineages, of species you never had in hands - 
this is THE taxonomic chaos.


Philipp






On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 18:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
  Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> 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.

----------------------------------------
Dr. Philipp Wagner
[www.philippwagner.net]

Research Associate:
Department of Biology
Villanova University
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085, USA

Home Institution:
Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig
Adenauerallee 160
D-53113 Bonn
Deutschland

+49 228 9122 254

More information about the Taxacom mailing list