[Taxacom] New species/taxon descriptions—compatibility with ICZN: question

[Luis Ruedas]

All (particularly commissionaires on the list):

A question has come up among the mammalian taxonomy community regarding the
validity of certain names that have been recently.  I'll use one example
explicitly, but there are others.

A new species of rodent in the genus *Phyllootis* was published in
Zoologica Scripta (https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12510).  However, the
published paper does not name the species, but rather refers to it
throughout as *Phyllotis* sp. 2 (based on a previous paper describing
phylogenetic relationships in the genus (DOI: 10.1111/zsc.12472).  The
authors conclude a section noting that,

Here, we describe and compare this new entity with related species of the
*P*. *xanthopygus* complex (Supplementary Material S6).  The new name was
regis-tered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank)
with number LSID urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E39D9E98- CC02- 4D2E- AC32-
3573136FE6EE.

The actual description, however, is, as the authors noted, in the
supplementary materials.  However, those SD are in a Word file, which it
seems to me violates ICZN 8.1.3.2.  Other taxa similarly described in
non-immutable format include *Solenodon paradoxus haitiensis* and *Antillomys
rayi*.

To complicate matters in the present instance, the journal in question,
Zoologica Scripta, indicated in a letter to one of the authors that it is
the policy of the journal that species descriptions be in a supplementary
materials file, and that:

Description of taxa: Names of new taxa must be mentioned in the abstract
and in the main manuscript text but the actual detailed descriptions must
be provided as supplementary material. In order to comply with the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) the following points
must be addressed:

1) The publication must be registered in Official Register of Zoological
Nomenclature (ZooBank) (http://zoobank.org) prior to being published in the
sense of the Code.
2) Evidence of registration must be included within the publication itself,
which is most commonly the registration number assigned to the publication
or to a new name in that publication.
3) The ZooBank record must include an ISSN (or ISBN) for the journal (or
book) in which the work will appear.
4) The ZooBank record must include an intended online archive, preferably
indicated for the Journal itself as this will then cover all subsequent
articles, but it may be given for specific articles as well.
5) A date of publication (preferably including day, month and year) must be
included within the publication itself."

So my question is: is this a valid name or does it violate The Code?
Insights welcome.

Sincerely,

Luis

-- 

Luis A. Ruedas, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Portland State University