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

Tue Apr 15 18:50:33 CDT 2014

Alan,
Nobody is suggesting that it is good for the Code to allow types to be designated in the way that Hoser has in this case! Nevertheless, it does. This should be changed in the next edition, but for now we are stuck with it.
Cheers,
Stephen

________________________________
From: "Weakley, Alan" <weakley at bio.unc.edu>
To: Barry OConnor <bmoc at umich.edu>; Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> 
Cc: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2014 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

Hi all:? here is the current code for algae, fungi, and plants (http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=title)

Bottom line:? after 2007, physical specimen only (exceptions as noted below).

Surely the basic function of a type is to allow a later researcher to independently assess the application of the name.? I'll not try to apply myself lawyerly to the zoological code, but if it allows a type to be sight record, reported secondarily, without a physical specimen or an illustration (as seems to be the situation in this case), the basic, common-sense intent of a "type" seems (to me) to be abrogated.? No-one can later and independently evaluate the meaning of the name.? Or, is it good enough that if someone goes out to the lat-long of that sight record, catches a big turtle of genus Macroclemys, then that stands as the typification?? It's a changing world, these creatures move around themselves and get moved around by people.? A location is not a type.? 

Note that Article 40.5 attempts to deal with the situation brought up in Daphne Fautin's post about organisms "that do not preserve well". 

ICNafp:? 

8.1. The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is either a single specimen conserved in one herbarium or other collection or institution, or an illustration1 (but see Art. 8.5; see also Art. 40.4 and 40.5).

8.5. The type, epitypes (Art. 9.8) excepted, of the name of a fossil-taxon of the rank of species or below is always a specimen (see Art. 9.15). One whole specimen is to be considered as the nomenclatural type (see Rec. 8A.3).
40.4. For the purpose of Art. 40, the type of a name of a new species or infraspecific taxon (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an illustration prior to 1 January 2007; on or after that date, the type must be a specimen (except as provided in Art. 40.5).
Ex. 4. "Dendrobium sibuyanense" (see Art. 8 Ex. 6) was described with a living collection indicated as holotype and was not therefore validly published. It was not validly published later, when Lubag-Arquiza & Christenson (in Orchid Digest 70: 174. 2006) designated a published drawing as "lectotype", contrary to Art. 40.6, which does not permit use of the term "lectotype" in naming a new species starting from 1 January 1990. Nor was valid publication effected when Clements & Cootes (in OrchideenJ. 2009: 27-28. 2009) published "Euphlebium sibuyanense" for this taxon, because after 1 January 2007 their indication of this drawing as holotype was precluded by Art. 40.4.
40.5. For the purpose of Art. 40, the type of a name of a new species or infraspecific taxon of microscopic algae or microfungi (fossils excepted: see Art. 8.5) may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical difficulties of preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name.

Just my (botanical) opinion...

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 Barry OConnor
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:38 PM
To: Doug Yanega
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

I'm still having difficulty resolving this one. I've always thought that the ICZN does not allow photographs or illustrations to BE types, only that they are photos or illustrations of the actual living/dead animal specimen that WAS the type. Thus, I assume that a neotype could be designated if necessary even if the original photograph or illustration of the (missing, escaped, freed) animal specimen that WAS the type is still extant. I believe the Botanical Code does allow illustrations themselves to be types, but I'm no expert on that code. - Barry

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:

> On 4/15/14 2:27 PM, Fautin, Daphne G. wrote:
> > Sorry, but the illustration is not the type.? The Code clearly
> stipulates that it is the individual illustrated that is the type -- 
> Article 72.5.6.
> >
> I admit I did not make the nuances here entirely clear, and John Noyes 
> phrased it better:
>
> On 4/15/14 10:10 AM, John Noyes wrote:
> > Being a bit nitpicky about this, the code here (Art. 73.1.4) does 
> > NOT allow the designation of an illustration (per se) as a type, it 
> > only allows the specimen that is illustrated to be designated as a 
> > type. A picture in itself cannot be designated as a holotype, only 
> > the specimen that it illustrates.
> > In other words if the code meant that the picture itself were the 
> > holotype then if that picture exists then it would not be possible 
> > to designate a neotype for the species (without recourse to the ICZN).
> > However, if the illustrated specimen were destroyed then it would be 
> > possible to designate a neotype of that species without recourse to 
> > the ICZN so long as all the condition for designating a neotype were met.
> >
> You are both correct, and it relates to the "per se" qualification. 
> Yes, this affects neotype designation, and while it's subtle, the 
> distinction here is accurate; you can replace an illustration with a 
> neotype exactly as if the holotype is lost, so an illustration is not 
> actually a holotype even though it *can be* *designated* as such; the 
> exact wording of the Code (with my emphasis added) is
>
> "Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype IS 
> TO BE TREATED AS designation of the specimen illustrated"
>
> Thus you can, in fact, designate the illustration AS the type, but 
> that does not mean that the photograph IS the type. We are all in 
> agreement on this, it is simply that the phrasing is complicated.
>
> 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.
>

--
-So many mites, so little time!

Barry M. OConnor
Professor? & Curator
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology/Museum of Zoology

University of Michigan? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? phone: 734-763-4354
1109 Geddes Ave.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fax: 734-763-4080
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079? ? ? ? ? e-mail: bmoc at umich.edu
_______________________________________________
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.