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

[Adam Cotton]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Philipp Wagner" <philipp.wagner.zfmk at uni-bonn.de>
To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; "Weakley, Alan" 
<weakley at bio.unc.edu>; "Fred Schueler" <bckcdb at istar.ca>; 
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code


> 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.
>


This is incorrect. Article 16.4.2 only applies to EXTANT specimens, and thus 
if the designated holotype was never collected it can still be a designated 
holotype, but it will be lost. If 16.4.1 is satisfied, along with other 
articles governing naming of species group taxa, then the name is available 
regardless of whether or not there is actually a preserved holotype in a 
collection or it is somewhere out there. A neotype may need to be designated 
when a specimen is available, if there is any uncertainty as to the identity 
of the original holotype.


> 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.
>


Indeed this is one important issue that taxonomists will need to deal with 
after such names have been poorly published. Article 13.1.1 only states that 
characters must be given that are PURPORTED to differentiate the taxon. 
Whether they really do differentiate it or not has no bearing on the 
availability of the name.


>
> 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
>


I am not a herpetologist, but in my discipline, Lepidoptera, I deal with 
every name ever published and treat it as available or unavailable according 
to the Code or as a result of Opinions of the ICZN Commission. I do not 
selectively ignore the works of any author, regardless of the quality of his 
work.

Adam.