Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

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

Anthony Gill gill.anthony at gmail.com
Tue Apr 15 21:23:32 CDT 2014 

Must be something they have in the water at BPBM Neal. I'm aware of a
similar thing (two new subspecies, one holotype) in fishes.


On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>wrote:

> Lighten up guys.
>
> I don't care much for Grehan's or Head's posts on Croizatism so I just
> delete them without reading when I don't really care to read them (I do
> read some). You are free to do that if you don't like the content. The
> subject line is your easy key to your "read" / "delete" decision.
>
> But I'm curious about two holotypes for one species. That's a pretty good
> trick. We had a botanist here at Bishop Museum (Harold St. John ? who some
> on this list may equate with Hoser's quick-and-dirty
> get-the-names-out-fast-syndrome; and also in a non peer-reviewed journal
> [Phytologia]). Result? He did the opposite ? three separate species for the
> same herbarium sheet!
>
> Cool or what?
>
> -Neal
>
> On Stardate 4/15/14 4:04 PM, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> <mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>> scribbled the following tidbit:
>
> 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<mailto:ccarlt at lsu.edu>>
> To: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>;
> Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>>; "
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>" <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>; Stephen
> Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:ccarlt at lsu.edu>>
> To: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org>>;
> Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>>; "
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>" <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>>; Stephen
> Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto: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<mailto:
> taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> <mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> on behalf of Stephen Thorpe <
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto: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<mailto:
> 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<mailto:neale at bishopmuseum.org
> >>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz<mailto:
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>>; Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:
> dyanega at ucr.edu>>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>>
> >To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
>



-- 
Dr Anthony C. Gill
Natural History Curator
A12 Macleay Museum
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia.

Ph. +61 02 9036 6499
Editorial Board, Species and Systematics:
http://www.ucpress.edu/series.php?ser=spsy

More information about the Taxacom mailing list