Taxacom: published names without description

[John Grehan]

I know I could probably figure this out with a little research, but with so
much expertise available, I figure it's more efficient to get authoritative
insight. If new names are published, as in an abstract - First report of
the family Micropterigidae (Lepidoptera) from Central America with
descriptions of two new genera and five new species
<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fesa.confex.com%2Fesa%2F2014%2Fwebprogram%2FPaper88117.html&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6c18601c89e94fac897e08dd1875fac2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638693617224644584%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EbLSZYKshYdZcRYPOajxvvQkkoV%2B4yz9XEziX0d2IYQ%3D&reserved=0>
but without description, are these names valid or nomen nudum?
Clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

John Grehan

-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C6c18601c89e94fac897e08dd1875fac2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638693617224662511%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TUq9AUV8LSGhcMfg7pDk3UfG0E55jdD9Y9nFmSm%2B0GY%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.