Taxacom: expanding the concept of nomen dubium

[Douglas Yanega]

On 11/26/24 2:26 PM, Leslie Watling via Taxacom wrote:
> Article 75.5 states: "the author may request the Commission to set aside
> under its plenary power [Art. 81] the existing name-bearing type and
> designate a neotype."
>
> What I would like to propose, instead, is that a section be added to
> "Article 12. Names Published Before 1931", allowing for an author to
> propose in a published paper that a species be declared a nomen dubium if
> the author can demonstrate that the original description of a species is
> too vague and that the type specimen is of no use in sorting out the
> important characters of the species because the type specimen is degraded
> or lost.

What you are asking is essentially what Article 75.5 already does ("When 
an author considers that the taxonomic identity of a nominal 
species-group taxon cannot be determined from its existing name-bearing 
type"), with the difference being that you are apparently asking that 
authors be allowed to set aside types *without* submitting a request to 
the Commission, and therefore potentially without any form of peer review.

A moment's reflection should suggest that allowing any author to 
unilaterally do this could lead to considerable controversy and 
instability. This would be especially problematic in paleontology, where 
there is often disagreement over the quality and identity of various 
type specimens. Putting fossils aside for the moment, consider that if a 
type contains any viable DNA at all, we may eventually be able to 
identify it with confidence; just because a type is presently 
unrecognizable does not mean we will NEVER be able to recognize it.

The requirement that the Commission be asked to intervene seems not only 
prudent, but probably absolutely necessary, to establish some sort of 
control over the act of setting aside existing types. That is an extreme 
step, and requires safeguards against abuse.

More to the point, perhaps, is that as things stand, taxonomists are 
*already* free to declare a name to be a nomen dubium, even if published 
recently, since the Code does not regulate that decision at all; it is a 
taxonomic status, not a nomenclatural status. A nomen dubium is still 
available and still has a type (its nomenclatural status is unchanged), 
but no one knows what taxon it refers to (its taxonomic status).

Sincerely,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314  voicemail:951-827-8704
FaceBook: Doug Yanega (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C56fadadcae794b84dd8d08dd0e801408%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638682665439737954%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sk8FkgonoJT1IssesYUaPBEk6YEXn92jmlYEjT%2Fo%2Bwg%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82