[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 153, Issue 6 (Richard Wells questions)

[Lynn Raw]

Dear Richard,

Since it appears that nobody seems to have given you the courtesy of a reply, maybe I can give you my personal and very unofficial opinion of how you should proceed.

First of all, I am sure you have already analysed the taxonomy and determined which are the valid taxa that you are dealing with in your paper. The next step is to determine which names have been used for these taxa up to now. If there are none then go ahead and propose them as new taxa with new names. Where there are existing names then follow the Code in determining which is the earliest valid name applicable. If you believe that any of these names may be invalid then cite the chapter and article of the Code and the reasons why you consider the name invalid. Those names that are synonyms of earlier names in terms your taxonomic analysis should be listed as such under the appropriate taxon. Finally, reference all the publications used to determine these outcomes both in the text and in your references section. This way future workers will know that you have considered all the available literature at the time of writing. I don’t think that ignoring anything that you don’t like (or others don’t like) will do you any favours. However, if you can show the valid or invalid status of those particular names by  showing how they meet or don’t meet the Code then this will be a useful contribution.

I am copying my response to the two discussion lists concerned so that anyone who disagrees with these views has an opportunity to have their say.

Regards,

Lynn




 
> On 13 Jan 2019, at 14:05, Richard Wells <envirodata at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Commissioners,
> 
> I am putting the final touches to a paper that deals rather extensively with the classification of the Australian herpetofauna, and naturally I have had to also consider at length the various taxonomic and nomenclatural acts of Ray Hoser. In relation to the Australian fauna most of his erections are, in my assessment not only Code-compliant, but also biologically valid entities in my view, and his taxon names could be likely used at this time without too much disruption to Nomenclature. Additionally, some of his work is in error in my view and is synonymous with already known entities as well. However, given the Application currently before the Commission, are his new nomenclatural and consequently taxonomic actions in herpetology post-2000 able to be used in other systematic publications before a decision on the Case is handed down by the ICZN (whenever that may be)? Can I even list his entities named within the works since the year 2000, including even the bibliographic citation of the articles that form the basis of the Application at this time? Now I require an interpretation strictly by the Book (i.e. the Articles of the 4th Edition)...so what should I do?
> 
> Yours Faithfully
> 
> Richard Wells
> ________________________________
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 32 some years, 1987-2019.