[Taxacom] manuscript name question

[Adam Cotton]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Laurent Raty" <l.raty at skynet.be>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] manuscript name question
>
>
> "16.4. Species-group names [...] must be accompanied in the original 
> publication [...]
> 16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a 
> statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection 
> and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection (see 
> Recommendation 16C)."
>
> Thus if the type illustrated by Figure 4 is an "extant specimen", the 
> description must still give its whereabouts.
>
> Laurent -
>


To expand on Laurent's point, interpretation of 16.4.2 needs to consider the 
meaning of the phrase *extant specimens*, rather than focussing solely on 
the "extant" part.

The implication of the phrase *extant specimens* not only implies that they 
are still in existence (for instance as living wild individuals), but also 
that they have been preserved as *specimens*.

If 16.4.2 also applies to wild individuals that were not actually collected 
the word *specimens* would be superfluous and irrelevant to the meaning of 
the article. The fact that the word is included indicates quite clearly that 
for article 16.4.2 to apply to a case the type(s) must be both extant and 
specimens.

If the type(s) are not both extant and specimens then article 16.4.2 does 
not apply, and there is no need to include a statement of intent to deposit 
the type(s) in a collection.

Thus 16.4.2 cannot apply in the case of the South African Bombylid fly, 
regardless of whatever subsequently happened to the individual in the photo. 
Of course it would be preferable for science had the individual been 
collected and preserved as a specimen - in which case 16.4.2 could apply, 
but only IF the authors were aware of this event prior to publication.

Adam.