[Taxacom] A nomen nudum in Bombus

[John Grehan]

As one who has no learned expertise whatsoever on nomenclature, I do find
it problematic to 'recognise' or use nomen nudum names. I had this occur in
my group (ghost moths) where a Chinese author wrote on the biology of a
species using a name without the required designations (designated type
specimen and description). So there is no way to know what they were
referring to. Obviously it might be a 'real' and new species, but no way to
know, and so I see no value in this case continuing to "use an unavailable
name as if it were valid". I get the impression that people are free to
choose to ignore some or all of the code. Whether such choices are
preferable or not is in the eyes of the beholder.

John Grehan

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:14 AM Andrew Whittington via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> I'm with Doug on this one Stephen,
>
> Of course nobody can prevent use of the name after it has been proposed -
> but you entirely miss the point that the name should not have been
> published without proper adherence to the ICZN protocols in the first place.
>
> These are not pointless technicalities of the code, but rather lack of
> adherence to a set of agreed principles that have been developed by the
> scientific community to serve a very clear purpose. What scientist do and
> what they should do are clearly two different things and we should be
> encouraging adherence to the protocols, not dodging around them for
> convenience.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrew
>
> ====o0o====​
> Andrew E Whittington
> Consultant Entomologist, PhD, FRES MCSFS
> Zootaxa Editor: Diptera & small orders of insects
> ZooNova Entomology Editor
> https://flyevidence.co.uk/
> ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0465-1172
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/flyevidence/<
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/flyevidence/?viewAsMember=true>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen
> Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: 02 June 2021 03:16
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Douglas
> Yanega <dyanega at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A nomen nudum in Bombus
>
> Well, that's about what I would expect from you Doug - a completely
> irrational opinion! Names like Bombus incognitus carry with them useful
> scientific data, derived from the publication in which they were
> technically an unavailable name. So, your view, if I understand it, would
> prevent anyone using the name Bombus incognitus, except perhaps by way of a
> note that this name has been used in publications, but is technically
> unavailable. My view, rather, is that we can just use the name, in the
> usual way, until such time as it gets validated. This is what happens in
> reality - does anyone remember reality? - for names which are unavailable
> for more subtle reasons, which nobody may even notice until well down the
> track. I'm not trying to undermine the ICZN at all, I'm just trying to
> reconcile it with the reality of what scientists do, and minimise
> disruption caused by pointless little technicalities of the Code.Cheers,
> Stephen
>     On Wednesday, 2 June 2021, 11:48:38 am NZST, Douglas Yanega via
> Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  On 6/1/21 2:56 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> > For unavailable names like Bombus incognitus, for example, I recommend
> > the following:
> > Assuming that they refer to a good species without any other name
> > available, use the unavailable name as if it were the valid name for
> > the taxon, until such time as someone validates the name
> > nomenclaturally. Any such validation should use the original name,
> > i.e. Bombus incognitus, rather than disruptively coin a different
> > name. Of course, if the species is inadvertently named again as new,
> > witha different name, then Bombus incognitus will be superseded by the
> > new name, except if the name Bombus incognitus has already gained wide
> > usage, in which case an application for conservation of the name would
> > be appropriate. It must be remembered that many names in current usage
> > are unavailable for somewhat less obvious reasons than Bombus
> > incognitus, e.g. lack of specified type depository, etc. It is far
> > more sensible just to continue using them as if they were valid, until
> > such time as any nomenclatural problems can be resolved (and there is
> > really no hurry or necessity)
> >
> I disagree with essentially everything you have suggested above, and
> strongly suggest that others here learn from you exactly what NOT to do.
> It's like you are actively seeking to undermine the principles of the
> ICZN, by making proposals that go directly against what the Code
> specifically tells people they should do.
>
> Give it a rest, please,
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 34 years, 1987-2021.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 34 years, 1987-2021.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 34 years, 1987-2021.
>