Taxacom: Dates of e-pubs ahead of print?

[Adam Cotton]

On 04/09/2022 04:41, Thomas Pape via Taxacom wrote:
> Names that are published [for the purposes of zoological nomenclature] after 1930 but fails to conform to Art. 13 are nomina nuda.
> Names published [for the purposes of zoological nomenclature] after 1999 and complying with Art. 13 but not complying with Article 16 are "unavailable".
>
> /Thomas
 >
 >
 >


I was waiting for further comment on this or direct replies to my 
question repeated here:
> What status do you give to names published after 1999 but not 
> complying with Article 16? I would also treat these as nomina nuda.

Since there have been no further replies I would like to bring it up 
again, particularly as it seems to be an unclear consequence of the 
wording of Code edition 4.

I feel that while I agree with Thomas Pape's reply, just referring to 
names which are non-compliant with article 16 to be treated as 
'unavailable' is somewhat inadequate. I am particularly thinking of how 
to treat such names in synonymic lists. Calling these 'Nomen Nudum' is a 
clear label, but separating them as just 'unavailable' brings up the 
question 'why?' in the mind of a reader of the synonymic list for a taxon.

I have generally regarded such names as nomina nuda because they are 
effectively the same ... names in a work which conforms to Code 
publication requirements, but which are not available for use as taxon 
names.

I shall explain my particular case further, but without specifics. An 
author published a butterfly book in 2007 in which he described and 
named several new subspecies without designating type specimens 
according to article 16.4.1. After publication I contacted the author, 
who told me that he hadn't realised that the criteria had changed since 
the 3rd edition (i.e. he hadn't bothered to read the 4th edition). I 
then explained that he needed to re-describe the taxa in a Code 
compliant manner.

In 2012 he published a 2nd edition of the book with holotypes 
designated, mostly not conforming to article 16.4.2 (indication of 
location of the holotype) but all of these names not conforming to 
article 16.1. In the 2nd edition he quoted the descriptions in the 1st 
edition but clearly treated each name as described in 2007, not 
explicitly stating them to be new from the 2012 publication. At this 
stage I gave up trying to advise him, as some names were no more than 
synonyms and others had been validly described elsewhere.

My question about names which do not comply with article 16 was not 
specifically aimed at this case, but was a more general response to the 
Glossary definition of nomina nuda.

Adam.