[Taxacom] ninjabaerus
Richard Pyle
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Sat Jan 23 02:31:11 CST 2021
2021
I'm going to do something I very (very) rarely do: disagree with Thomas:
> This is why scientific names proposed for 'Nessie', 'Bigfoot', and other fictional
> creatures are not available.
As far as I can discern, the scientific names for both "Nessie" (Nessiteras rhombopteryx Scott & Rines 1975) and "Bigfoot" (Homo sapiens cognatus Ketchum 2013) are available under the Code. I am well aware of arguments (e.g., Notton et al. 2011) that the former is unavailable under Art. 1.3.1; but I think a careful reading of both Art. 1.3 and the original description (https://www.nature.com/articles/258466a0.pdf) make it clear that Art. 1.3.1 does not apply. Note that Art. 1.3.1, in full (including the text of Art. 1.3), reads: "[Excluded from the provisions of the Code are names *proposed*] for hypothetical concepts;" I emphasized the verb "proposed" because it references the context in which a name is established. There is no indication that Scott and Rines *proposed* a name for a hypothetical concept -- there is every indication within the original publication that they proposed the name for what they asserted to be a very real organism (complete with photos purported to depict the type specimen). It is often pointed out that the name itself is an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S". But this no more represents evidence that the authors intentionally proposed an name for a hypothetical concept than the fact that the name is also an anagram for "Yes, both pix are monsters – R" represents evidence that they believed it to be a genuine organism. Nothing in the original description suggests that it was proposed for a hypothetical concept.
It is likewise clear from the original description of H. s. cognatus that the authors very-much considered the taxon to be real (not hypothetical): https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/novel-north-american-hominins-final-pdf-download.pdf
The point is, I think the verb "proposed" in the context of Art. 1.3 (and, by extension, Art. 1.3.1) clearly implies that the description itself must assert that the name is intended for a taxon that is not based on actual specimens (or, what are believed to be actual specimens), but rather a hypothetical concept (e.g. the hypothetical common ancestor of two extant taxa, absent any fossil evidence for such). If it were interpreted otherwise, then *any* name for which an extant type is not available could be argued to be "hypothetical" after the publication of the description, and declared unavailable (anagrams or not).
I haven't read the original description for Bicingulatus ninjabearus, but I gather it is evident from the paper itself that the taxon is hypothetical (e.g., "Therefore, this paper seeks to test the limits on the application of phototypes." -- evidently a misguided attempt to malign the need for the Code to accommodate non-extant type specimens). Thus, in this case, I think a strong case could be made that Art. 1.3.1 does apply to this name, if it was indeed proposed by the authors to apply to a hypothetical concept.
As for this:
> the circumscription of a species can be seen as a scientific hypothesis
I fully agree with Thomas that it *can* be seen this way. And in very rare cases it may actually be framed this way. But in the vast, vast majority of cases, new species are proposed as *defined* entities, not *hypothesized* entities. Hypotheses are falsifiable; definitions are not.
[Drops mic, sneaks out back door...]
Aloha,
Rich
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115; Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
BishopMuseum.org
Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> Thomas Pape via Taxacom
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 2:34 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ninjabaerus
>
> 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.
>
> /Thomas
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of igor
> pavlinov via Taxacom
> Sent: 22. januar 2021 21:02
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] ninjabaerus
>
>
> Thanks to all who responded so swiftly. I haven’t known anything
> about ninjabaerus.
>
> However, the paper in question is of a certain importance to me because
> it provides a rare example of an explicit use of the term «phototype» (not in
> the sense of lichenologists). So I’ll probably have to cite it, all the same, as
> well as an another example of «joke nomenclature» (along with famous
> Rhinogradentia).
>
> As to the reference to the Art. 1.3.1, the latter is curious by itself. The matter
> is that any schientific knowledge is hypothetical, so description of a new taxon
> is always a kind of taxonomic hypothesis to be tested by new data. So, from
> a «philosopical» (Popperian) perspective, the main thesis of this Article is
> incosistent and needs reformulation in more correct terms.
>
> My bests,
>
> Igor
> - - -
> Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
> Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University ul. Bol'shaya
> Nikitskaya 6
> 125009 Moscow
> Russia
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fzmmu.
> msu.ru%2Fpersonal%2Fpavlinov%2Fpavlinov1.htm&data%7C01%7Ct
> pape%40snm.ku.dk%7C355d8e3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927f91c
> da14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469425250453314%7CUnknown
> %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haW
> wiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=eUF8oLktYIIbS3l9XwmlFo6TIiLOng
> %2BOBQIr8aVQnqE%3D&reserved=0
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fzmmu.
> msu.ru%2Fpersonal%2Fpavlinov%2Fpavlinov_eng1.htm&data%7C01
> %7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C355d8e3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927
> f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469425250453314%7CUnkn
> own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
> haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Sf0uQWBpjnnVkjz7Qn1XImfS
> OIo4WCtTZvwfSiWuj8I%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailma
> n.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-
> bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data%7C01%7Ctpape%40sn
> m.ku.dk%7C355d8e3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927f91cda14696af8
> 98c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469425250453314%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
> Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1x96fA62Mv%2BEddhRBUicHccWZQZZ40nyU
> XX%2Ba4inNnw%3D&reserved=0
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be
> searched at:
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxaco
> m.markmail.org%2F&data%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C355d8e
> 3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0
> %7C0%7C637469425250458306%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC
> 4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&a
> mp;sdata=q9k3fEO3%2F2mqNC5ZeQ7ahXEQ%2BB3avpUYjdrN1Tf8q2Q%3D&a
> mp;reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu For
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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 The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be
> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list