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

Tue Apr 15 21:04:50 CDT 2014

Hey, some of us are enjoying this semantic tedium. I'm not talking to myself, you know? Anyone who doesn't like it?is free to?ignore or unsubscribe to the list. What would you like us to talk about, Chris? Besides, I'm trying to make the point that the Code is unresolvably vague, but I have already pointed to a possible solution to the Hoser problem, i.e. the ICZN just needs to rule against the journal (AJH), not the?"taxonomist" ?(though they are, of course, one and the same!)
?
Stephen

________________________________
From: Christopher Carlton <ccarlt at lsu.edu>
To: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2014 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

Stephen, you can deflect the point and?start harping on that?if you want, but this unresolvable?back and forth is getting really tiresome. You can debate it on private emails or start your own blogs, have a conference,?whatever, but stop wasting other peoples' time and diluting an otherwise useful list serve. This?discussion has ceased to be a productive exchange of ideas.

Chris Carlton, Ph. D.
Benjamin Holton Professor of Agriculture?
Director, Louisiana State Arthropod Museum
Department of Entomology, LSB-404
110 Union Sq.,?Baton Rouge, LA 70803-1710
?
www.lsuinsects.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Louisiana-State-Arthropod-Museum/138001816222246?ref=ts

________________________________

From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:44 PM
To: Christopher Carlton; Neal Evenhuis; Doug Yanega; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code 

I note that this thread was started by Thomas et al. (2014) invoking a pedantic/semantic interpretation of a Code article, an interpretation which suited their agenda, but I am just trying to point out that if you are going to argue Code semantics against someone (Hoser in this case), it may well backfire as the Code is inherently vague. Anyway, I'm not surprised this Chris isn't interested in mere details of the Code. Have I mentioned the unfortunate case of Pselaphotheseus ihupuku Carlton & Leschen, 2001? Two authors, two reviewers (presumably) and at least one editor all failed to notice that two different holotypes were designated! See: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03014223.2001.9518277?Awesome attention to detail there, guys! And all the type labels on the actual specimens say Pselaphotheseus ihupukuensis! I have so much confidence that the species has all of the characters ascribed to it ...
?
Stephen

________________________________
From: Christopher Carlton <ccarlt at lsu.edu>
To: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>; Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2014 1:22 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

I only hope Amy Miller has better luck getting her stuck lids off than you are having resolving this thread. Please, move on to the next bit of semantic tedium!

Chris Carlton, Ph. D.
Benjamin Holton Professor of Agriculture
Director, Louisiana State Arthropod Museum
Department of Entomology, LSB-404
110 Union Sq., Baton Rouge, LA 70803-1710

www.lsuinsects.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Louisiana-State-Arthropod-Museum/138001816222246?ref=ts

________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:24 PM
To: Neal Evenhuis; Doug Yanega; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

Yes, Neal is correct. I note that it is perhaps a softer option for some commissioners to try to impose pragmatic interpretations on the existing vague Code, than it is to draft a new and far less vague Code, or to officially publish official Opinions on specific cases. But I, for one, shall ignore them. I have no objection, however, to an official Opinion which deems Australasian Journal of Herpetology to be an invalid publication, if the ICZN isn't convinced that it is really being published in a Code compliant manner, or something like that.

Stephen

________________________________
From: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2014 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

To chime in here one more time --

I again agree with Stephen and I think Doug is not interpreting things in
a "broad" sense to be inclusive of available names, but rather he is being
dangerously* "restrictive". The ICZN has had a history of being
broad-minded and not censoring the actions of zoologists when attempting
to name species. It has even allowed the specimen upon which a photograph
was based to be a primary type; and the same for the specimen behind an
illustration (although with the latter there are confounding cases that
have had an illustration based on more than one specimen!). The only
difference between a depiction of a specimen and a database record is that
the physical depiction (photo or illustration) can be verified by a third
party. If you want to re-write the Code and be more clear, then THAT is
the wording you need to put in Article 16 to restrict future uses of
database "specimens" as primary types. But as the Code is currently
written, Hoser did all that was required, because the Code does not say a
specimen has to be "verified" that it is need the specimen an author said
it is.

So -- again: in this case, there is indeed a specimen upon which a
database entry was made (whether it be a physical specimen or an
observation). It was not fantasy, and it WAS verified by the collector(s)
listed in the database. Someone again is obfuscating this thread
discussion by inserting the word "unverified" when what was said by the
FLMNH database manager about those "occurrence" records was that they were
"unvouchered" [= not present in the collection].

Doug had said earlier in this thread (in a response to one of my posts)
that in his opinion these observations were like the Xmas bird count. To
keep with that analogy, then indeed these would be verified
identifications since the Xmas bird count has some pretty strict rules on
IDs of sightings. Sure there are abuses of verifications of sightings --
as there are abuses in taxonomy in general. For example: how many
"holotypes" have been described that have been said in the work to be
deposited in a particular collection, but they have never found there or
in nature? When that happens, the name is said to be either a nomen dubium
or incertae sedis. In this situation, the only difference from Hoser's is
that Hoser's species DOES occur in nature!

But to get back to the crux of the matter. Some on the list want to nix
what Hoser has done because they claim the specimen (with a specimen
number) that he specifically designated "did not exist". That is hogwash.
And is bordering on censorship, in my opinion.

*I do not at all condone Hoser's m.o. But to avoid being labeled as
censoring a worker's intention to describe a new species according to the
Code, we have to be careful and a bit more 'broad-mined' until someone
comes along and re-writes the Code to avoid this from ever happening again.

-Neal

On Stardate 4/15/14 11:06 AM, "Stephen Thorpe"
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

>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.
>_______________________________________________
>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.

This message is only intended for the addressee named above.? Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.? Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited.? If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.? Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum. 

_______________________________________________
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.