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

[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Aug 23 17:49:18 CDT 2018 

"In contrast to Stephen I would not recommend to treat it as an available  name in a checklist. I would list it in the section of unavailable 
names, with a detailed comment explaining the problem"

Please note that I did NOT simply suggest treating it as an available name in a checklist! I suggested treating it as an available name in a checklist, with a (detailed) comment explaining the problem.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 24/8/18, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Friday, 24 August, 2018, 10:41 AM
 
 Dear José,
 
 You are not stupid. It is not the first time
 since 2000 that this 
 happened. The problem
 is already known and I have observed awareness 
 that some new regulations of the 4th edition
 Code led to undesired 
 effects. In the next
 edition of the Code I assume that better solutions 
 will be found, and that such problems can be
 fixed more easily, 
 solutions that would
 conserve original authorships and dates.
 
 The name is currently unavailable. It could be
 made available in a 
 relatively short
 corrigendum, in which the criteria of availability are 
 met. It is not necessary to repeat the entire
 description and republish 
 figures, because
 the Code allows to give a bibliographical reference to 
 the description published by Li et al. 2009
 (Art. 13.1.2).
 
 The Code has
 a section that is called Appendix A - Code of Ethics. Such
 
 a case is not directly described there, but
 I would compare it with Art. 
 3 following
 which a new replacement name for a junior homonym should not
 
 be published without informing the original
 authors of the homonymous 
 name and give
 them some time (a year or so) to establish a new 
 replacement name.
 It would be
 fair and good practice to inform the authors of the 2009 
 paper that they could ask the journal to
 publish such a corrigendum to 
 make that
 name available. They can also ask the ICZN Commission for
 
 advice how to do it correctly. If the
 journal refuses to publish such a 
 Corrigendum, the Commission can help finding a
 solution. Commissioners 
 could also
 cross-check the final version. In this case the name and the
 
 authorship would be the same, just the date
 of publication would differ.
 
 For reading the Code it is sometimes necessary
 to have some insider or 
 background
 knowledge how certain Articles must be understood. Like
 every 
 legal work it is not written in the
 style of a service guide. It is 
 desirable
 to improve that.
 
 In
 contrast to Stephen I would not recommend to treat it as an
 available 
 name in a checklist. I would list
 it in the section of unavailable 
 names,
 with a detailed comment explaining the problem.
 
 Cheers
 Francisco
 
 
 
 -----
 Francisco Welter-Schultes
 
 Am 23.08.2018 um 16:24 schrieb Fernandez,
 Jose:
 > 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.
 > 
 _______________________________________________
 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