[Taxacom] manuscript name question
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sat Oct 10 17:50:55 CDT 2015
Hang on a minute Rich. Please re-read what you wrote! If you are going to count "still alive" as an option for "extant specimen", then Steve & Neal's fly might well have been still alive when they published the description, in which case the name would be unavailable due to the lack of a statement of holotype deposition for what you've just said is an "extant specimen"! Of course, it might be impossible to prove/disprove that it was still alive at that time, but all I'm saying is that there could be an unlucky and unlikely sequence of events which could invalidate the name (e.g. someone captured it after photography and kept it alive in a jar at home, photographing it each day with a time stamp!). It is a risk, albeit a negligibly small one. I'm not arguing against what Steve and Neal did, I'm just trying to figure out where any weak points are, and how weak they are. What I have described is the only weak point, as far as I can see, so I don't think it
likely that the fly description will prove to be problematic at all. So, it is all good.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/10/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
To: "'Stephen Thorpe'" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>, gread at actrix.gen.nz, Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: neale at bishopmuseum.org
Received: Sunday, 11 October, 2015, 11:12 AM
Hi Stephen,
I disagree. Art. 16.4.2. says that species-group names
published after 1999
must have an explicit fixation of the name-bearing type(s),
that includes a
statement of the name and location of the collection where
the type(s) will
be deposited "where the holotype or syntypes are extant
specimens". The
Code Glossary defines "extant" in the context of specimens
as "still in
existence", which I think most of us interpret as meaning
some physical
manifestation of an organism that is substantially more
cohesive than
dissociated molecules. That is, a specimen that is
either still alive, or
collected and preserved in a museum, or otherwise still
somehow intact (as
opposed to an organism that has long-since
disintegrated). While it's
technically true that the organism depicted in the
illustration that was
designated as the name-bearing type might have somehow
escaped decay (still
alive, collected and preserved, embalmed in amber,
whatever...), if you hold
the "technicality bar" of the Code to this high of a
standard, then almost
EVERY Article breaks down into ambiguity (i.e., now we're
talking in the
realm of how nothing in the universe is ultimately
unambiguous).
So, while it's fun to argue that a the organism depicted in
the illustration
might have been collected and preserved unbeknownst to the
authors, or that
it happened to be engulfed in amber when it died, or that a
stiff wind blew
it up to the north pole where it became frozen in a block of
ice (etc.),
such arguments don't really help us in this discussion,
because they fall
way outside the reasonable scope of probability.
A much bigger problem (MUCH bigger problem!) with Code
compliance is that
people simply fail to indicate the name and location of the
collection where
the holotype/syntypes is/are intended to be deposited, even
when it's clear
that the specimens were collected and preserved and are
almost certainly
known to be "extant" by the authors. It's often clear
in the publication
itself that a specimen was in-hand, and preserved, and is
almost certainly
still extant, but through oversight/unawareness of the
requirements, the
name and location of the intended collection are not
included within the
work.
Rather than fret about this (so-far) non-problem of
descriptions based on
"non-extant" specimens, we should instead focus our
collective energies
towards: 1) making more taxonomists and would-be taxonomists
aware of the
requirements of the Code; and 2) discussing ways in which
the NEXT edition
of the Code will make it less confusing to establish new
names in
compliance, so taxonomists can focus more of their time
doing taxonomy,
instead of nomenclature.
Aloha,
Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 10:59 AM
> To: gread at actrix.gen.nz;
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> Cc: neale at bishopmuseum.org
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
>
> Actually Rich, the nomenclatural weak point of what
Steve & Neal have done
> with this fly is to interpret the Code in such a way
that the holotype
isn't an
> "extant specimen". That could be disputed, based on the
EXACT possible
> meanings of those words, but even if we grant them
their preferred
> interpretation, consider this: they don't really know
the fate of that
individual
> fly after it was photographed. Maybe someone collected
it! Maybe it has
> been accessioned into a museum collection. If the
accession date can be
> shown to be before the publication date of the
description, then "we have
a
> problem Houston!" That would mean that it was an extant
specimen at the
> time the description was published, so Steve and Neal
needed to make a
> statement of deposition of the holotype in order for
the new name to be
> available! An unlikely, but possible scenario!
>
> Cheers, Stephen
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sun, 11/10/15, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
> To: gread at actrix.gen.nz,
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Received: Sunday, 11 October, 2015, 6:22 AM
>
> OK, as the originator of the
> "unambiguous" quote, I feel compelled to reply.
Let me rephrase my
> original comment as:
>
> "The description of M. xylocopae is about a
unambiguously compliant with
> the Code as any description of a new taxon can
be."
>
> Nothing in the Code is absolutely unambiguous ...
in the sense that
nothing
> in the universe is absolutely unambiguous.
>
> I read Markus Moser's letter, and as impassioned
as the argument is, it
runs
> contrary to what is actually written in the
Code. The way the Code is
> written, sub-articles inherit the context of
their parent articles. The
parent
> article for Art. 73.1.4 is Art. 73.1, which reads:
> "Holotypes. A holotype is the single specimen
upon which a new nominal
> species-group taxon is based in the original
publication". The phrase
"in the
> original publication" is about as unambiguous as
the Code gets. If the
> provisions of Art 73.1.4 were intended to apply
to subsequent type
> designations, it would have been in a section
dealing with Neotypes and
> Lectotypes; not Holotypes.
>
> So ... use of 73.1.4 in the description of M.
> xylocopae is in no way a distortion of the intent
of the Article.
>
> Whether or not this article is "relevant" to this
species (per Stephen's
> comment) is open to debate, but I do see his
point. However, I still
think it is
> relevant; although Art. 72.5.6 is probably more
directly relevant.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf
> > Of Geoff Read
> > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 5:55 PM
> To:
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name
> question > > > 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?s
> > id=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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list