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

[Taxacom] A nomen nudum in Bombus

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu Jun 3 19:33:34 CDT 2021 

I'm a bit confused (when am I not?) regarding the statement that " They can
use the unavailable name adding the necessary information to repair it" I
thought that if a name was nomen nudum it was unavailable so one cannot use
it?

John Grehan

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:16 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

>  Scott,You have simply repeated the same flawed argument as others have
> already done in this thread. Yes, there could be a name change if a later
> author coins a new name for the species, but it is no more or less a
> problem than any other name change (and many of the latter are arguably
> unnecessary anyway, just subjective splitting, fueled by the mihi
> itch!)Cheers, Stephen
>     On Friday, 4 June 2021, 06:49:58 am NZST, Scott Thomson <
> scott.thomson321 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Several problems with this beyond taxonomy and nomenclature. Here as
> taxonomists we are specialists we tend to be aware of issue names at least
> within the scope of our specialty groups of taxa. General scientists, the
> end users of the nomenclatures we put forward are not.
> Assuming the name starts getting used and finds its way into the general
> lit, for all appearances it has stability. It's been sitting there
> technically a nomen nudem for years because no one fixed it. Someone
> finally decides to fix the issue, they have choices. The name is nomen
> nudem and hence is unavailable which means it does not really exist. They
> can use the unavailable name adding the necessary information to repair it.
> Its now of course their name not the original authors, although thats of
> lesser importance. They could also replace the name with their own for
> whatever reason. A taxon with what people thought was a stable name now has
> a new name. Not a good look, taxonomists will be accused of messing with
> the stable nomenclature for the sake of nomenclature. I think its better to
> ignore a name that is unavailable, then it never gets traction. If the
> authors or someone else fixes it in the future it can be used at that point.
> In the Global Lists Governance I do not believe any of us could take the
> risk with an unavailable name on the chance it will be repaired in the
> future. The Global Lists are aiming at stability for all users of
> nomenclature, not just taxonomists. Accepting usage of unavailable names is
> not stable.
> I understand your points Stephen, and how you have restricted this, but it
> seems unworkable in the big picture.
> Cheers Scott
>
>
> |  | Virus-free. www.avg.com  |
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:58 AM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  Well, it has no greater downsides than for any name change
>     On Thursday, 3 June 2021, 08:23:45 pm NZST, Roland Bergman-Sun via
> Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  Translation:
> Attaching scientific information to unavailable names that may be
> changed at any time has no conceivable downsides, so it's all fine.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:12 PM Stephen Thorpe
> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew,
> > I respectfully disagree. Code compliance is preferable but not vital.
> There is bad science on both sides, i.e. code compliant and code
> non-compliant, and good science on both sides. If a name can be
> unambiguously linked to a species, then we should use it, even if it is an
> unavailable name on a technicality.
> > I kind of get it that you are overplaying the problems associated with
> Code noncompliance so as to discourage people from sloppy nomenclature, but
> that doesn't change the fact that there are no serious problems associated
> with using an unavailable name as if it were valid.
> > Cheers, Stephen
> >
> > On Thursday, 3 June 2021, 07:58:30 pm NZST, Andrew Whittington <
> awhittington at flyevidence.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stephen,
> >
> > just doesn't really matter if it ends up taking a while
> >
> > Well, actually, it does matter. Maybe not to you - but then you are
> consistently not listening to the numerous members of this forum that have
> explained why.
> >
> > The name is currently not code compliant and there is time to fix it
> before publication. Not doing so does not mean the name should be used
> until sometime in the future if/when it gets fixed. It means it should not
> be used and is unacceptable.
> >
> > If we follow your method, then the future will be littered with names
> that are not code compliant because authors feel that they can "get away
> with it" given that some taxonomist in the future will come along and
> remedy the bad science that has been propagated through non-code
> compliance. It suggests that the code "doesn't really matter".
> >
> > If authors wish to promote new names, then the actions leading to the
> use of those names need to be code compliant, otherwise we may as well tear
> the code up right now.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Stephen
> Thorpe via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> > Sent: 03 June 2021 04:19
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; Roland
> Bergman-Sun <kotatsu.no.leo at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A nomen nudum in Bombus
> >
> > Roland,I don't disagree, except that if it does take a while to get
> fixed, then that shouldn't stop us from using the name as if it were valid
> (and by that I recommend flagging it as unavailable, while still using it).
> The difference between an available name and an unavailable name makes
> little or no difference in practice. So, by all means encourage people to
> fix the problem in timely fashion, but it just doesn't really matter if it
> ends up taking a while to get fixed.Cheers, Stephen
> >    On Thursday, 3 June 2021, 02:19:59 pm NZST, Roland Bergman-Sun via
> Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >  Recommending people to treat unavailable names as if they were
> > available *is* encouraging bad taxonomic practice.
> > Asserting that this is okay because someone might make the name
> > available in the future is encouraging people to attach further
> > scientific data to a name that may not be used in the future.
> > If attaching scientific data to a name that may not be used in the
> > future is a problem, then encouraging people to do so is bad taxonomic
> > practice.
> >
> > My suggestion was and remains:
> > If the existence of this nomen nudum is a (potential) problem for
> > researchers in the field, there may still be time to alert the
> > authors/editors and have them amend the manuscript to make the name
> > available, since it is still only a preprint.
> > To which can be added:
> > If the preprint cannot be further modified for some reason, and the
> > existence of this nomen nudum is a (potential) problem in the field,
> > then the authors should be encouraged to make the name available as
> > soon as possible, before attaching further scientific data to a name
> > that may be replaced in the future.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:45 AM Stephen Thorpe
> > <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> > >
> > > Roland,
> > > You are still not making much sense. As I already stated, I am not
> trying to discourage the fixing of the problem. I am not trying to
> encourage bad nomenclatural practice either. I am simply trying to point
> out that an unavailable name can be validated at any stage, so there is no
> reason not to keep using it for the species. The worst case scenario is
> that someone renames it with another name, but that is no worse than any
> name change and will be even more likely to happen if we ignore the current
> name as you seem to be suggesting. Names function as names, whether or not
> they are Code compliant. There used to be an arcane myth in taxonomy that a
> nomen nudum means that name can never be used. Perhaps this myth is still
> around?
> > > Cheers, Stephen
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:13 AM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom
> > <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >  John,Like just about everyone else on this list, you too haven't read
> what I wrote properly! I was explicitly talking only about cases in which
> the name does unambiguously apply to a species, by way of a good taxonomic
> description which fails on a mere nomenclatural technicality. You are
> mixing this up with a different problem.Cheers,Stephen
> > >    On Thursday, 3 June 2021, 03:56:06 am NZST, John Grehan <
> calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  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.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> Scott Thomson
>
> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> Petrópolis, Manaus
> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> Brasil
>
> http://www.carettochelys.com
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722Lattes:
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728Skype: Faendalimas
> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
>
>
> |  | Virus-free. www.avg.com  |
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list