[Taxacom] ninjabaerus

[Douglas Yanega]

On 1/22/21 4:33 PM, Thomas Pape via Taxacom wrote:
> Igor:
> You are correct that science can be seen as a hypothetico-deductive method and the circumscription of a species can be seen as a scientific hypothesis.
> However, the zoo-Code has this definition in the Glossary:
>
> ----------------------------------
> concept, hypothetical, n.
> A taxonomic concept that when published contained no animal then known to exist in nature, past or present, but only in the mind of the author whether a prediction or not.
> ----------------------------------
>
> This is why scientific names proposed for 'Nessie', 'Bigfoot', and other fictional creatures are not available.

The converse situation, where a fictitious name is proposed for a real 
organism, also does occur, but as far as I am aware, all such cases are 
not considered "published" in the sense of the Code, Article 8.1.1:

"8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and 
permanent scientific record,"

So a name appearing *within a work of fiction*, even if it makes 
deliberate reference to a real organism (and may even provide a 
description or illustration), is also excluded from scientific nomenclature.

For one prominent (if trivial) example, even though a coyote is a real 
canid, and the name "Famishus vulgarus" appeared in 1957 in a medium 
produced in multiple identical copies, with accompanying illustrations 
of a coyote (e.g. - https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gEw9RrccvYU/hqdefault.jpg), 
it is NOT a validly-published synonym of Canis latrans.

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)
              https://faculty.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82