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

[Doug Yanega]

On 4/15/14 2:06 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> But there is no definition in the Code to specify or constrain how 
> exactly a holotype may be designated.
Actually, there is. It's called Article 73.1.
> 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.
It can't specify anything if DATABASE is not published. Even indications 
only worked when there was a published reference being pointed to.
> Doug is perhaps confusing this with indication, as defined by the Code.
And designating types via indication effectively ended with the 
publication of the 4th Edition of the Code. Since 2000, it now requires 
explicit fixation, under Art. 16.4, which was ADDED to the Code in the 
4th Edition. That means that the information required to recognize the 
holotype now must be *self-contained*, rather than attributable to some 
third party. Note that 73.1.2 indicates that after 2000, you cannot use 
evidence from "outside the work itself" to identify which specimen is 
the holotype, and in this case it is impossible to identify which 
specimen is the holotype using only the information Hoser presents - 
since there is, and never was, any such physical specimen in the Florida 
Museum of Natural History, and Hoser did not include any photographs.
> 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.
Which it cannot, since there is no specimen, unlike referring to a 
specimen number attached to an actual specimen. "That fly I saw on the 
table in my neighbor's yard at 0930, June 11, 2010" might also point to 
a unique specimen, but it cannot be used as a holotype designation, 
either - unless you also happened to supply a photograph.
> 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.
>
Not really. Any taxonomist who wants to treat Hoser's names as 
unavailable can do so. That doesn't mean they are correct in doing so, 
but as I pointed out earlier, the literature is full of names, and 
decisions regarding names, that are not Code-compliant. The name 
"Darwinius mesillae" was not available when it was first made public, 
but the community treated it as if it was.That case demonstrated that 
the community's opinion was what really mattered, and the same is true 
here - there is no default presumption that a name is available until 
proven otherwise, unlike a court of Law and the presumption of 
innocence. Hoser considers his names available, and other taxonomists do 
not, and both sides claim that their stance is prima facie, so we have a 
controversy. The Commission can offer guidance in cases where there is a 
controversy, and that's one of our primary functions, but even then, we 
cannot force people to recognize our opinions. I am offering mine, 
adding that other Commissioners are in agreement that Hoser's type 
designations in this case are not Code-compliant, and - at least thus 
far - none in dissent, though the internal debate has just begun. It may 
not be "Official", but there's two things you need to realize about 
that: (1) even "Official" statements from the Commission are ignored by 
some taxonomists, so a formal case and vote does not guarantee any 
actual resolution (it just closes the case as far as the Commission is 
concerned), especially since I assume that even if the Commission were 
to rule against him in a formal case, that Hoser would continue to treat 
his names as available, and (2) it is truly ironic that you are 
insisting that the Commission MUST *publish* an opinion to declare that 
an *unpublished* observational record does not count as a Code-compliant 
holotype.

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