[Taxacom] manuscript name question

[Stephen Thorpe]

I think that the Code was never intended to give "permissions". If it doesn't explicitly say you can't do something, then you can! Besides "pictures-only" is just a very particular case of a wider issue about whether types actually have to have been examined by authors and whether they have to be preserved. Getting the wording right seems to be the biggest challenge for the ICZN, who are probably not trained lawyers! 

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/10/15, Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
 To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
 Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Sunday, 11 October, 2015, 12:50 PM
 
 Rich,
 
 I see chapter 16 as advice for taxonomists
 looking at prior work. Advice
 for
 taxonomists creating new taxa is in chapter 4 on
 availability. If
 pictures-only are code
 compliant the permission to do this should be in
 chapter 4. Maybe this will be in the next code,
 but this current code
 doesn't allow
 it.
 
 I totally agree with
 you that 73.1.4 applies to looking at existing types
 and thus, I maintain, NOT to when new taxa are
 being created.  As Moser
 said, it deals
 with a type now missing, but happily the situation is
 recoverable somewhat because the original
 author also indicated it was the
 type he had
 illustrated, and we now get what information we can from
 the
 drawing.  The article shouldn't be
 used for new taxa. That is the lifting
 out
 of context (of unfortunate now-convenient wording) that
 people are
 uneasy with.
 
 Geoff
 
 On
 Sun, October 11, 2015 6:22 am, Richard Pyle wrote:
 > 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"
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 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.