[Taxacom] manuscript name question

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi Geoff,

It seems that Art. 73.1.4 is widely misunderstood, possibly because it may be a relic from long ago which seems ridiculous to modern readers. All it says is that if someone designates a photo of specimen X as a holotype, then the holotype is specimen X, rather than the photo of specimen X!

Anyway, I agree that Steve and Neal were a bit quick to dismiss their fly holotype as not being an "extant specimen", but it doesn't change things much. All they had to do was to make a statement along the lines of "in order to render this holotype designation Code compliant, we hereby state that we will deposit the specimen in the collection of the Bishop Museum". Then the new name would be an available name, regardless of whether the holotype is extant or not, and even though they can't possibly deposit it anywhere! In the absence of that statement of deposition, things are a bit "messy", but not "as messy as Nessy!" [sorry!]

Cheers,

Stephen

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

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
 To: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Cc: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Saturday, 10 October, 2015, 7:28 PM
 
 Stephen
 
 Yes, I'm pretty doubtful
 about that unambiguity too.
 
 Sorry, your earlier pertinent comments I seem
 to have missed in the volume
 of noise. The
 authors do make a feature of discussing 73.1.4 and the
 case
 seems similar to the 2005 monkey in the
 forest in which the authors said
 the
 holotype was the animal in the photo, just as the fly
 authors do here
 ("Holotype represented
 in photograph No. 7007").  Polaszek et al (in the
 item I give the Doi for) then invoked 73.1.4 as
 justification for no
 physical specimen with
 the following words "Article 73.1.4 provides an
 opportunity for the description of new taxa
 without the necessity of
 providing dead type
 specimens".
 
 Now you
 say that above is irrelevant. Okay, then we fall back on how
 to
 interpret the term extant in Art. 16.4.2,
 which the current authors get
 around by
 saying their specimen is suddenly not extant - there it was
 in
 the photo, but now the molecules which
 made it up no longer adhere - poof,
 it's
 vanished, and 16.4.2 doesn't apply. Actually they say
 "a lost,
 escaped, or purposefully
 released specimen is not “extant”.  Well, I
 cannot agree with that claim.  At very least
 the authors have not provided
 any proof of
 it.
 
 Not sure of the
 relevance of your 'dead and preserved' comment.
 
 
 
 On Sat, October 10, 2015 6:07 pm, Stephen
 Thorpe wrote:
 > 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.
 >
 >
 
 
 --
 Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
 8 Zaida Way, Maupuia
 Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
 gread at actrix.gen.nz