Taxacom: published names without description

[Adam Cotton]

Thomas,

Thanks very much for the comprehensive reply which clearly addresses all 
my points and more, much appreciated.

Adam.


On 16/12/2024 22:02, Thomas Pape via Taxacom wrote:
> 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