Taxacom: published names without description

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Two questions were asked: (1) are the names valid?, and (2) are they 
nomina nuda?

Looks like we are dealing with an electronic publication without ZooBank 
registration number. So this abstract is not published in the sense of 
Art. 8 of the Code.

And therefore it is clear that the names are not valid. They are not 
available names.

But they are not nomina nuda.

To qualify for a nomen nudum, a name must be published. Published in 
such a context means, in the sense of Art. 8.

So none of these names seems to qualify for being a nomen nudum.

If this helps.

Would the abstract be published in the sense of Art. 8, then we would 
have to look more closely.
A nomen nudum is a name that fails to meet the conditions of Art. 13.

"Males of Magnijuxta bear highly derived sexual characters: both the 
juxta and valva are hypertrophied..."
- This would be a diagnostic description and means that Magnijuxta would 
not fail to comply with Art. 13.1.1.
But as Doug said, no name-bearing type was designated, failing to comply 
with Art. 13.3. So also Magnijuxta would be a nomen nudum.

If one of the new species would have such a diagnostic desciption in the 
abstract and no name-bearing type designated, then this name would fail 
to comply with Art. 16.4 and be unavailable, but it would not be a nomen 
nudum (because it would not fail to comply with Art. 13).


Best wishes
Francisco

Am 09.12.2024 um 18:21 schrieb John Grehan via Taxacom:
> 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%7C5a900aecd9cd4112351308dd18a2db5a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638693809929858857%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PyCyk67B96uALc9z3dXwwRjKF%2B7Rsrxj4h7%2ByXhiUG0%3D&reserved=0>
> but without description, are these names valid or nomen nudum?
> Clarification would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John Grehan
>