Taxacom: published names without description

[Adam Cotton]

Having been away for a few days I was catching up on the e-mails that 
came in on Taxacom and one interesting question occurred to me.

Assuming a name is introduced in a publication complying with Articles 8 
& 13 but is unavailable due to non-compliance with Article 16, the name 
is not treated as a nomen nudum but as an 'unavailable name'. There are 
a number of such names in my subject group.

My question is, how should such an 'unavailable name' be treated in a 
synonymy? Nomina nuda can have '[nomen nudum]' placed after the entry 
for the name, but what is the best indication for a name in this case? 
Just '[unavailable name]' seems rather awkward.

Adam.


On 10/12/2024 05:43, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
> 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