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

[Taxacom] ninjabaerus

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Sat Jan 23 18:45:21 CST 2021 

Thanks Rich,

Well, I think the intention of the author and the state of scientific 
knowledge at the time of publication are things that should be taken 
into accont, and I agree with you, certainly not today's state of 
scientific knowledge. Nessie existing in the real world or not cannot be 
a decisive criterion.

Thomas pointed out that Nessie is on the fair side of the edge, but only 
because of the line "their existence seems closer to being established". 
I think we agree that this is where the name becomes admissible for 
nomenclature.

The term "hypothetical concept" has to do with a person having something 
in mind. The koala bear did exist, but the author distinguished his new 
species from the koala bear by having carnivorous teeth. So the concept 
was "koala bear-like animal with carnivorous teeth", and this taken 
together was something that only existed in the mind of the author, who 
used this example in the intention to test the limits.

A name for a hypothetical ancestor should also be covered that rule. I 
agree with you that this is probably the intention of Art. 1.3.1. But 
also here we would probably need to look closely on which ones would be 
the decisive points where to look at.
Someone who publishes a figure of such an ancestor and composes that of 
an image of an existing specimen, to which are added some hypothetical 
structures that the author believes that the ancestor would have had, 
would technically have based that taxon partly on an existing specimen. 
But in the mind of the author that physical specimen was not intended to 
represent the concept.
In contrast to the koala bear case that author would have had serious 
scientific intentions, but nevertheless both cases can probably be 
compared (= they would be equally far away from the edge, I think they 
land on the far side of the edge) because in both publications the 
evidence in the work would suggest that the concepts are hypothetical.

Cheers
Francisco

Am 24.01.2021 um 00:42 schrieb Richard Pyle:
> Thanks, Francisco.  I think the distinction with respect to Art. 1.3.1 is not so much whether the authors "believed" that the organism existed; but rather whether they were basing the name on physical material.  To me, a name proposed for the hypothetical ancestor of one or more other organisms, absent any physical evidence for the existence of such an organism, is what Art. 1.3.1 should be interpreted as clearly unavailable in this context.  In other words, I think there has to be some clear explicit (or very clearly implicit) indication on the part of the authors that the existence of the organism being name is speculated, bot based on physical material.  The case of "Nessie" is right on the edge, per my reply to Thomas.
> 
> You raise a good point about the fact that B. ninjabearus did indeed include an image of a physical organism, so this might also be one of those "edge cases".  Perhaps it is better treated as an available name and subjective heterotypic junior synonym of Phascolarctos cinereus?
> 
> In general, I think the key is to avoid rules in the Code that allow subsequent subjective declarations to impact the availability of the name, such as "I seriously doubt that the organism you claim to represent the type specimen of your new species ever actually existed".
> 
> But I agree we should put some thought into this for Code5.
> 
> 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
>> Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom
>> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 7:43 AM
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ninjabaerus
>>
>> I appreciate this debate, it may help in the Code-5 preparation.
>>
>> Sometimes in zoological nomenclature we work with intentions of authors.
>>
>> If the intention of the authors is to name a species that they believe really to
>> exist, we would probably treat such a name differently as in the case of an
>> author who does apparently not believe the animal to exist and publishes
>> name and description in the intention to test the limits.
>>
>> Bicingulatus ninjabearus did exist in the mind of the author, but was it
>> hypothetical?
>> I would not doubt that the photographed animals were real specimens, but
>> the expressed intention demonstrated that he did not really believe the
>> animal for which he intended the description to exist.
>>
>> We separate this from a situation in which a friend sent those photos to the
>> author, reporting that the specimens were deposited in a collection, the
>> author believed that and published exactly the same description.
>>
>> The taxonomic concept did contain an animal then known to exist in nature (a
>> koala bear). If the holotype is a specimen composed of a set of components,
>> Art. 73.1.5 applies. The teeth could be removed by a revising author and the
>> existing koala bear would remain.
>> Same situation as in Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti, 1768: the author believed
>> the nile crocodile did exist, never saw one, trusted a previously published
>> figure which later turned out to be a phantasy crocodile based on two real
>> species deposited in a collection. The description of course did not refer to a
>> nile crocodile, the nile crocodile was not really "known" in the scientific sense
>> to exist in nature, the authors in this epoch just trusted stories.
>> However I think in this case Laurenti's intention counts, he did believe the nile
>> crocodile existed, and based the descrption on a name-bearing type. So the
>> name refers to one of the two species that later turned out to represent the
>> holotype, given that Art. 73.1.5 was applied, the name is available.
>>
>> When the application of Art. 1.3.1 is judged, the content of the description
>> can problably not be considered. My feeling is that the intention of the author
>> must be taken into account.
>> We could eventually give the Laurenti 1768 example to illustrate how Art.
>> 1.3.1 is to be applied.
>>
>> Zoologists need to get this clear because it is relevant for purposes of
>> homonymy. Nessiteras is preoccupied, also Crocodylus, Bicingulatus probably
>> not.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Francisco
>>
>> Am 23.01.2021 um 16:39 schrieb Thomas Pape via Taxacom:
>>> I am happy to align with Rich.
>>>
>>> In the original description of Nessiteras rhombopteryx, Nature provided a
>> short abstract, which shows that the journal [topic editor?] saw the paper as
>> the authors' intent of naming "a species whose existence is still a matter of
>> controversy".
>>>
>>> The only evidence in the paper itself is the statement that:
>>> "their existence [i.e., the animals] seems closer to being established".
>>>
>>> The zoo-Code applies only to taxa containing at least one "animal then
>> known to exist in nature, past or present", and the authors of Nessiteras
>> rhombopteryx admittedly appear to have had no doubts about the reality of
>> "the large animal species living in Loch Ness". And if just one of the syntypes
>> represented by the many sightings and photographs is of a fish or a seal
>> (https://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/SC039151-157.pdf), then this requirement
>> would probably be fulfilled.
>>>
>>> No matter how precise the zoo-Code is worded, we cannot avoid the shades
>> of probability nor can we avoid the penumbra of not knowing exactly what is
>> or was on any author's mind.
>>>
>>> /Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>>> Sent: 23. januar 2021 09:31
>>> To: 'Taxacom' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>>> Cc: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>
>>> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] ninjabaerus
>>>
>>> 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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
>> nature.com%2Farticles%2F258466a0.pdf&amp;data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40s
>> nm.ku.dk%7C2d3c4ccb51e34bb86be408d8bf794152%7Ca3927f91cda14696af
>> 898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469875272089367%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
>> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
>> Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=YF5WYCM4WUNnxFIDKVHxjYoob2mlU12euI3
>> BYE9mgHo%3D&amp;reserved=0) 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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fheav
>>> y.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2Fnovel-north-american-
>> homini
>>> ns-final-pdf-
>> download.pdf&amp;data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C2d3c4
>>>
>> ccb51e34bb86be408d8bf794152%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C
>> 0%7C0
>>>
>> %7C637469875272089367%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA
>> wMDAiLCJQ
>>>
>> IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=M3jY%
>> 2BQLg
>>> SPmzGAlQaAskYSo8J0r5pzelMS6x76lFqZg%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>
>>> 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&amp;data=04%7C01%7Ct
>>>>
>> pape%40snm.ku.dk%7C355d8e3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927f91c
>>>>
>> da14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469425250453314%7CUnknown
>>>>
>> %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haW
>>>>
>> wiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=eUF8oLktYIIbS3l9XwmlFo6TIiLOng
>>>> %2BOBQIr8aVQnqE%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>>
>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fzmmu.
>>>>
>> msu.ru%2Fpersonal%2Fpavlinov%2Fpavlinov_eng1.htm&amp;data=04%7C01
>>>>
>> %7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C355d8e3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927
>>>>
>> f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469425250453314%7CUnkn
>>>>
>> own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
>>>>
>> haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=Sf0uQWBpjnnVkjz7Qn1XImfS
>>>> OIo4WCtTZvwfSiWuj8I%3D&amp;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%2Fmail
>>>> m
>>>> a
>>>> n.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-
>>>>
>> bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&amp;data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40sn
>>>>
>> m.ku.dk%7C355d8e3bc78c41d7e78608d8bf109595%7Ca3927f91cda14696af8
>>>>
>> 98c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469425250453314%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
>>>>
>> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
>>>>
>> Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=1x96fA62Mv%2BEddhRBUicHccWZQZZ40nyU
>>>> XX%2Ba4inNnw%3D&amp;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%2Ftaxa
>>>> c o
>> m.markmail.org%2F&amp;data=04%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:
>>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail
>>>> m
>>>> an.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-
>> bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&amp;data=04%7C
>>>> 0
>>>>
>> 1%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C2d3c4ccb51e34bb86be408d8bf794152%7Ca392
>> 7f91cd
>>>> a
>>>>
>> 14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%7C637469875272089367%7CUnknown%7
>> CTWFpbG
>>>> Z
>>>>
>> sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6M
>> n0%
>>>> 3
>>>>
>> D%7C1000&amp;sdata=zbBvqr3JztzzHV4RC6CsWqaCpOOa8nFfORzKlF%2BjE4
>> Q%3D&a
>>>> m
>>>> p;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%2Ftaxa
>>>> c
>>>>
>> om.markmail.org%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Ctpape%40snm.ku.dk%7C2d3c4
>> ccb51e
>>>> 3
>>>>
>> 4bb86be408d8bf794152%7Ca3927f91cda14696af898c9f1ceffa91%7C0%7C0%
>> 7C637
>>>> 4
>>>>
>> 69875272099362%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL
>> CJQIjoiV2
>>>> l
>>>>
>> uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=Szf7BByWoRs
>> nYrET
>>>> G
>>>> 4vE0o%2F8dGEU7FV40%2FKJ7uhL17A%3D&amp;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.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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