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

[Stephen Thorpe]

We are at the crux of the problem now. Doug suggests that?I think that anything that the Code doesn't explicitly prohibit is therefore allowed, but it is not that simple! In this case, the Code requires that a holotype be designated. But there is no definition in the Code to specify or constrain how exactly a holotype may be designated. At a minimum, a unique specimen must be somehow specified (pointed to). Stating something equivalent to "the specimen observed in the wild on DATE and TIME by OBSERVER and recorded in DATABASE" therefore may specify a unique specimen. Doug is perhaps confusing this with indication, as defined by the Code. This has nothing to do with the designation of holotypes, but indication is an alternative to description/diagnosis, whereby indicated diagnostic information (including illustrations) must be in the published literature. Hence, Doug highlights that a database record is unpublished. But Hoser is not using the database
 record to indicate diagnostic characters, he is simply usintg it to point to a unique specimen to act as a holotype. At any rate, whatever the opinion of individual commissioners is on this case is irrelevant, as only an officially *published* Opinion by the ICZN can overturn the prima facie availability of Hoser's names in this case.
?
Stephen


________________________________
From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2014 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code


On 4/15/14 5:30 AM, Philipp Wagner wrote:
> Dear Adam,
>
> of course it must not be a dead specimen, it can be a
> living specimen in captivity or even an illustrated
> specimen. But it is impossible to fix an observed specimen
> because you cannot link it with an individual, especially
> if it is a secondary observation.
>
> Philipp
>
>
>> Dr. Wagner,
>>
>> Please read 16.4.2 again. It is not about extant
>> species, it is about extant
>> SPECIMENS, ie ones preserved in a collection somewhere,
>> not live ones
>> running, flying or swimming around.
>>
>> There is nothing in the ICZN Code that states that the
>> holotype must be a
>> dead specimen.
>>
>> Of course it is preferable that a dead specimen or a
>> sample of its tissue
>> should be designated as holotype, but failure to provide
>> a specimen or
>> sample per se does not invalidate the name.
>>
>> Adam.
>>
Finally. At least ONE person here interprets the Code the way the 
Commissioners do. Explicit fixation means there can be no ambiguity as 
to which specimen is the holotype; the only - I repeat, ONLY - provision 
in the Code that allows for the holotype to be something other than a 
physical specimen is Art. 73.1.4, which permits authors to explicitly 
designate illustrations as types. After 2000, THERE ARE NO OTHER ALLOWED 
EXCEPTIONS. Mr. Thorpe seems to be under the mistaken impression that 
anything which is not explicitly prohibited (i.e., that the Code does 
not explicitly say "unpublished observations cannot be used as the basis 
for a holotype designation") must therefore be allowed, but that is NOT 
how this works. A database record is UNPUBLISHED, and cannot therefore 
be cited as a method of indication for a type specimen. Everything in 
the Code assumes that the relevant bits of information are PUBLISHED. 
Again, if Hoser had published photos of the type specimens, the Code 
would - marginally - have been satisfied, so long as he explicitly 
designated those photos AS the types (under 73.1.4). To reinforce my 
point, there is ONLY ONE Article in the Code that allows for the use of 
unpublished data relevant to type designation, and that is Art. 
72.4.1.1, which allows for unpublished information to be used in the 
determination as to which specimens are part of the type series - but 
this is explicitly ONLY for names published prior to 2000!! Hoser's 
names were published AFTER that cutoff, and are therefore NOT eligible 
to make use of unpublished data when determining which specimens are in 
the type series - accordingly, there is no type series in this case, 
because there is no holotype.

There are no other if's, and's, or but's to be applied in this case, 
despite what Stephen, Neal, and others are trying to claim; Hoser failed 
to meet the conditions for an *explicit fixation* of a holotype, as 
required by Art. 16.4.1, therefore his names are unavailable. It might 
have worked prior to 2000, but the present edition of the Code, 
mercifully, contains provisions that exclude the present case.

Sincerely,

-- 
Doug Yanega? ? ? Dept. of Entomology? ? ? Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314? ? skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
? "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
? ? ? ? is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82 


_______________________________________________
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.