[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Aug 23 17:46:46 CDT 2018
2018
The "Oparara fiasco" was more serious. The main issue was the homonymy of Oparara, with the lack of stated type depositories secondary. The problem though was that because the new generic name Oparara was based on a type species which technically was unavailable due to lack of stated type depository, the name Oparara was also technically unavailable (and so not technically a homonym of the earlier available name!) Had the only problem been the lack of stated type depositories, then the issue probably wouldn't have been worth bothering about.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 24/8/18, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Received: Friday, 24 August, 2018, 10:10 AM
Dear Jose,
Just draft something that will fix the problem,
you can use the recent
Leschen paper in
Coleopterists Bulletin where he fixed exactly this
error in Code compliance for one of his
papers. Then send the draft to
the
original authors, and ask them to validate the name. You
come off
as a good guy,they get
"ownership" of their work, and the names are
available. Everyone wins.
Mike
Three New
Genera of New Zealand Synchitini (Coleoptera:
Zopheridae: Colydiinae): Erratum
Author(s): Richard A. B. Leschen and Nathan P.
Lord
The Coleopterists Bulletin,
72(2):386-387.
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1649/0010-065X-72.2.386
On 8/23/2018
8:24 AM, Fernandez, Jose wrote:
> Hi
again,
>
> First of
all, I want to say THANKS A LOT to all of you that have so
far replied to my questions. I really appreciate that and
the time you have spent doing it.
>
> Based on the discussion so far, the
consensus is that the species name is still unavailable
-although I see different interpretations of the pertinent
articles that have been cited so far; if anything, it seems
as there is ambiguity in the Code there (not a criticism of
the ICZN per se, just an observation after reading the
articles AND the opinions of those who replied to my
questions).
>
> So now
I only have a single question to ask: Is there a way that
that name could ever be made available? Could you confirm
that a) there is NO way to make that Microplitis
vitellipedis name available by just clearly stating the
depository in a subsequent paper; and b) indeed the ONLY way
to make that species name available would be publishing a
subsequent paper that includes all ICZN requirements to make
such name available (a process that implies a new author
and year of publication for that species name)?
>
> The only reason I
have asked all those questions is because I am about to
finish a world checklist of the Braconidae subfamily
Microgastrinae (~2,800 valid names, a couple hundred names
in other categories). If the name Microplitis vitellipedis
could only be made available by the option b) cited above,
then I would simply list that name in a section I already
have for unavailable names. I have no intention to make
species names from other authors available, unless it could
be done via the option a) mentioned above. Thanks again for
any advice you can provide about that.
>
> [And, please, allow
me a stupid comment to end my message. I realize the
importance of regulations and so on. But I still see a
species that was a) described, compared to putative close
species, and illustrated (drawings) in 2009, b)
re-described, placed within a key to all Oriental species of
Microplitis, and illustrated (color pictures) in 2015, c) a
technicality (the authors of the original description
probably forgot to add the depository, or just assumed that
it was implicit that it was their institution, or just were
not aware of the new Code regulations, or whatever) now
prevents that species name to be available. Yes, there is no
justification for the authors not stating clearly the
depository in the original description, and I am no here to
defend or represent the authors in any way or shape. But, if
the depository indeed could be confirmed to be the Hunan
Agricultural University, China, and a subsequent note could
be published clearly stating that (preferably, done by the
original authors), would not that be a better solution than
any person using the available descriptions, stating a
depository and getting credited for the species name? Where
regulations and common sense meet? Or am I just too stupid
to fully understand the logic behind those Articles? If so,
I apologize in advance!].
>
> Cheers,
> Jose
>
> --
> José L. Fernández-Triana, Ph.D.
> Research Scientist, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
> Canadian National
Collection of Insects (CNC)
> 960 Carling
Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6, CANADA
> Phone: 613-759-1034. Email: jose.fernandez at agr.gc.ca
> Alternative email : cnc.braconidae at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
On Behalf Of Fernandez, Jose
> Sent:
August-22-18 5:24 PM
> To: parahym (parahym at nhm.ac.uk);
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Questions about
availability of a species name
>
> Hi all,
>
> I would greatly appreciate some
help/comments on the following topic. I have added a
"Right?" to the end of my paragraphs to mark my
questions (and NOT because I think that I am necessarily
right!). Hopefully you can clarify me the situation.
>
> Microplitis
vitellipedis Li, Tan & Song was described in 2009 from
China The original paper did not state the holotype
depository. Thus, the species name is unavailable under the
current ICZN. Right?
>
> Then in 2015 a taxonomic review of the
Oriental species of Microplitis refers to that species. It
states that the holotype is deposited in the Hunan
Agricultural University, China. That happens to be the
institution which the authors of the original description
were affiliated with (at least at the time of the 2009
publication). The 2015 paper, from Indian researchers,
states that "the type specimen of this species could
not be examined" and that they based their species
description, illustration and place in the key to Oriental
Microplitis species on specimens from India that they
actually examined. I am not sure if the 2015 authors
contacted the Chinese colleagues to verify that the type was
indeed deposited in the Hunan Agricultural University,
China. But that may be beyond the point, because what
matters is that, if the type depository was explicitly (and
clearly) stated in the 2015 paper, then that would comply
with the ICZN requirements and thus would make the name
Microplitis vitellipedis Li, Tan & Song available.
Right?
>
> Assuming
that the two previous paragraphs are correct, then my last
question is, how to refer to that species? I mean the
species name and authors would remain the same, but the
actual date assigned to that name should be 2015 (the moment
when the species name fulfilled all criteria to be
considered an available name, sensu ICZN) and not 2009.
Right? Should it be then Microplitis vitellipedis Li, Tan
& Song 2015? Is there something there that I may be
missing? Or some assumptions that are wrong? Or better ways
to interpret the situation?
>
> [If someone is interested in checking the
cited references, I will be happy to send pdf copies off
list (just send me an email for that). In any case the two
references are: a) Original Description Reference: Li,
Xi-ying; Tan, Ji-cai and Song, Dong-bao. 2009. A new species
of Microplitis Foerster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae:
Microgastrinae) of China. Entomotaxonomia. 31(3):225-229; b)
subsequent and so far only reference known to me: Ranjith,
A.P.; Rajesh, K.M. and Nasser, M.. 2015. Taxonomic studies
on Oriental Microplitis Foerster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae,
Microgastrinae) with description of two new species from
South India. Zootaxa. 3963(3):369-415].
>
> Thanks a lot for any
help you can provide!
> All the best,
> Jose
>
> --
> José L.
Fernández-Triana, Ph.D.
> Research
Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
> Canadian National Collection of Insects
(CNC)
> 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A 0C6, CANADA
> Phone:
613-759-1034. Email: jose.fernandez at agr.gc.ca<mailto:jose.fernandez at agr.gc.ca>
> Alternative email : cnc.braconidae at gmail.com<mailto:cnc.braconidae at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web,
visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list
at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance
while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web,
visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list
at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance
while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
--
__________________________________________________
Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
F.R.E.S.
NOTE: two
addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
PO Box
173145
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA
UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West
Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA
(406)
994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Send
Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at:
taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Nurturing Nuance while
Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list