ICZN => Type designations Required after 1999

[christian thompson]

>>> "W.Wuster" <w.wuster at BANGOR.AC.UK> 05/22 5:53 AM >>>
wrote:
>
>Amazingly, the absolute requirement for a type to be designated only came
>in with the 2000 edition of the Zoo Code. Pouyaud's description was
>published in 1999, so the absence of a designated type specimen does not
>invalidate the description. What this says about the author's work ethics
>and the journal's standards needs no further comment...

=======

Yes, that is true. And unfortunately, not uncommon. For example, the
Biological Journal of the LINNAEAN SOCIETY OF LONDON just this March allow
the publication of a new species of fly from the UK (Wales, etc.) which
remains a nomen nudum as there was no type designation.

Also, for those Code Warriors who are interested in the development of the
4th Edition, note the final wording.
Art. 16.4.2 reads "where the holotype or syntypes are EXTANT specimens, by
a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection
..."  Note that this wording was not in the circulated draft and has some
curious effects, such as:
if you describe a new bird species based on a photograph taken of a live
specimen, such an endangered Hawaiian honey creeper, then to make the name
available you better go out and collect that specimen 1) to ensure that the
type is in or will be in a collection or 2) to ensure that specimen is
destroyed before publication!


Cheers




F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., ARS, USDA
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560-0169
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 FAX
cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov [NB: no terminal "n"]
visit our Diptera site at www.diptera.org