[Taxacom] ICZN policy on replacing lost type specimens
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Thu Sep 13 13:43:03 CDT 2018
2018
No, Doug, the Code is not what you want it to say, it is what it
actually says. To say that the Code of Ethics requires or even suggests
what you say is simply wrong -- it says nothing of the type. Your
entire message could have been better to simply say "as in all things
dealing with nomenclature and types, be sure to carefully read and
follow the Code." It is rather insulting to this community to think we
need a pedantic lecture to simply do what is obvious. Then, to start
trying to say the Commission believes the Code and the Appendices should
be read broadly to indicate what YOU WISH it said, not what it actually
says, is to invite chaos.
Your statement " if we ask that people contact authors about replacing
their *names* (which we do), then we should also ask that people contact
authors about replacing their *types*" shows that you are talking about
extending what is in the Code to what you THINK SHOULD be in the Code,
but it is not there. If you can make such leaps here, then anyone can
make the same kind of leaps on other provisions. This is not permissible.
Further, you say "Things like this, that the Code does not explicitly
say or require, ARE part of the document" is simply not true. If it does
not explicitly say it, it is not part of the document. How a
Commissioner can be confused about this is astounding! From the
Introduction: "Problems in nomenclature are decided by applying the Code
directly... "
Mike
On 9/13/2018 11:48 AM, Doug Yanega wrote:
> On 9/13/18 9:34 AM, Michael A. Ivie wrote:
>> The writers should perhaps have thought about this more before
>> sending it out.
>>
>> 3. B. Indicates the writers are unfamiliar with the documents or are
>> writing from memory rather than from direct consultation of the text.
>> The statement "The second step, in keeping with Appendix A of the
>> Code (Code of Ethics), is to contact the original describer(s) of a
>> species beforeattempting to designate a neotype, and to collaborate
>> with them or to get their feedback" is simply fiction. The
>> recommentations in the Appendix deal with proposing NEW NAMES,
>> Neotypes are not mentioned at all. A Neotype does not, as I am sure
>> they know, establish a new name.
>>
>> However, I fail to see how you could fully establish that a type is
>> actually lost without asking a living author if by chance they have
>> it. This would be the required step involving a valid Neotype
>> designation under the Code itself.
> The phrase "in keeping with" was used explicitly rather than "as
> specified in". We are fully aware that there is nothing in Appendix A
> regarding neotypes, but the point is that our ethical philosophy needs
> to be consistent; if we ask that people contact authors about
> replacing their *names* (which we do), then we should also ask that
> people contact authors about replacing their *types*. Things like
> this, that the Code does not explicitly say or require, ARE part of
> the document, and that's why the heading says "required and
> recommended" rather than just "required".
>
> Peace,
> --
> 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
--
__________________________________________________
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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list