Taxacom: published names without description

[Thomas Pape]

In zoology, a nomen nudum is a subcategory of unavailable names.
As defined by the ICZN Glossary, a nomen nudum is a name that, "if published before 1931, fails to conform to Article 12; or, if published after 1930, fails to conform to Article 13".

Put more simply, this means that if published before 1931, a nomen nudum is a name published with neither description, definition or indication; and if published after 1930, a nomen nudum includes also generic names proposed without type species fixation.

A name failing to comply with Art. 16 is unavailable, but it would not fall under the category of "nomen nudum" because the information required by this Article does not relate to what could be called 'descriptive information', and it is the lack of description/definition/diagnosis that makes a name appear 'naked'.

Specifically to Adam on his question if there is a simple 'one-liner' other than 'unavailable name' to cite names failing to comply with Art. 16, my answer would be: "no, not at this time".

I do see the point in expanding the definition of a 'nomen nudum' to include also Art. 16, and the Editorial Committee currently working its way through the entire Code will discuss this, when we get to the Glossary (probably during 2025). Note, however, that a name can be deemed unavailable also under Art. 14 and Art. 15, and I therefore agree entirely with Scott, that a very efficient 'one-liner' is to specify the Article where a given unavailable name fails, i.e., on the form of:

Aus bus Smith, 1960:xx. [Unavailable; failing to comply with Art. 16.1.]
Bus cus Clark, 1975:xx. [Conditional proposal; failing under Art. 15.1.]
Cus dus Zhang, 1920:xx. [Nomen nudum; failing to comply with Art. 13.1.]

Finally, a remark on Adam's statement that: "this issue may become redundant for new names if registration = publication". Nobody knows how/if/when more of the Code compliance is migrated to an online Registry, but "registration = publication" is unlikely to become part of the proposal for Code-5, when it is sent out for the required one-year public review.

/Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Adam Cotton via Taxacom
Sent: 16. december 2024 11:42
To: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
Subject: Re: Taxacom: published names without description

Scott,

Thank you very much for your reply. I was actually asking whether there would be a simple way (other than 'unavailable name') to cite such names as part of a single line in a synonymic list: name, author, year, citation, 'status (where necessary)'.

It occurred to me that, as Francisco pointed out
> A nomen nudum is a name that fails to meet the conditions of Art. 13.
and that Article 16 (Names published after 1999) was new to the 4th edition.

Perhaps the authors of the 4th edition deliberately decided NOT to include names that do not comply with Article 16 as nomina nuda, or perhaps it was an oversight. Maybe someone here knows whether this was deliberate or not.

If it was an oversight, and the writers of the 5th edition feel it would be a good idea I would suggest that the definition be changed to include published names which do not comply with Article 16 between 2000 and before xxxx (date of publication of the 5th edition, when I understand this issue may become redundant for new names if registration = publication).

It seems that in fact the term 'nomen nudum' is only defined in the Glossary, so it may well have been an oversight not to include Article 16. I could not find the term in the main body of the Code other than as an example for Recommendation 51F.

Adam.


On 13/12/2024 04:57, Scott Thomson via Taxacom wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> the way I deal with it in synonymies I build in global lists, so a lot 
> of them, is to list them as "unavailable name" but with a specific 
> reference as to why, so I will cite the paper that says it is 
> unavailable or reference the article of the code it failed. I wont 
> just say "unavailable name" with nothing else as it's too ambiguous 
> and could really mean many things. Also as I am writing checklists 
> it's important that I am not making decisions per se in the checklist 
> itself, rather that I am following the scientific literature and 
> consensus. By citing something after this I hope to make that clear.
>
> Cheers Scott
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 6:37?PM Adam Cotton via Taxacom < 
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 37 years, 1987-2024.