[Taxacom] manuscript name question

[Stephen Thorpe]

Geoff,

I'm not sure that anything can be truly said to be "unambiguously Code-compliant"! Hoever, as I have tried to explain already (a couple of times), Art 73.1.4 is irrelevant to the fly! Marshall & Evenhius did not designate any photo as a holotype of anything! They designated as holotype of the new fly a specimen which they know only via a photo(s) of it. Art 73.1.4 does not apply! What would apply, if it existed in the Code, which it does not, is a requirement that a designated holotype be a dead and preserved specimen (at any stage in proceedings). If you can find me such I requirement, then I shall bow humbly to your greater intellect! :)

Cheers, Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 10/10/15, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
 To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Saturday, 10 October, 2015, 4:55 PM
 
 
 Hi,
 
 Although there is clearly a group who believe that the fly
 photo
 description "was unambiguously Code-compliant" under the
 current code,
 this is not correct.
 
 Read again Markus Moser's eletter "Holotypic ink" in Science
 from 2005 (a
 response to a comment and response about the Mangabey monkey
 picture,
 under the doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5744.2163c
 
 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2163.3/reply#sci_el_2652?sid=deb7fe6e-5527-45a6-b6f7-af1120d2750c
 
 Use of 73.1.4 for new taxa is a distortion of the article's
 intention
 which "... clearly refers to established species of which
 the types got
 lost somehow or are missing"
 
 --
 Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
 Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
 gread at actrix.gen.nz
 
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.