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

[Philipp Wagner]

Of course it is about extant species.
But with a secondary observation it is not possible to:
- explicit FIX the holotype, because you have no idea what 
individual the holotype is.
- if you have no idea about the individual, you cannot 
fullfill 16.4.2. and make a statement about deposit it 
into a collection

But what value has a name-bearing type if you dont need 
its characters?






>> 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. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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