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

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Judging from what was written, the name seems also unavailable to me. If 
I did not misunderstand something, then not the name, but the detailed 
description is required to be provided as supplementary material, which 
in turn is presumably not achived and not recorded in an immutable file 
format.
Failing to publish a description in a Code compliant form is a violation 
of Art. 12.1 and provokes unavailability of a name, even if that name is 
mentioned in the Code compliant published text. The same applies if the 
required information on the name-bearing type (Art. 16.4) is not 
published in a Code compliant form.

In this special case, if I understood that right, neither the name nor 
the description were mentioned in the Code compliant published text.

Best regards
Francisco

-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 12.08.2021 um 00:23 schrieb Scott Thomson via Taxacom:
> Well thanks Luis for sending it to me.
> 
> I looked it up the name is not registered in Zoobank though the Journal is:
> lsid:zoobank.org:pub:949E0EF9-5E39-4C8B-914A-C123FFC13302 it also has an
> ISSN recorded in ZooBank and on Wiley Online ISSN:1463-6409 which indicates
> it is an online Journal and hence subject to Art 8.5.3. The registration
> and the ISSN is not indicated in the article itself. I had to find those
> out by searching. The Journal has no website of its own so had to do this
> through Wiley, Zoobank and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences. To me it
> failed Art 8.5.3 and hence the name is unavailable.
> 
> Further to this the attached supplementary data is an unpaginated word doc
> that by looking at the site where it can be downloaded offers the option to
> check for updates, so it can be assumed this may not be a stable version.
> There seems to be little guarantees on the permanence of this document.
> There is no date in the supplementary materials where the description is
> contained, there is in the main paper, since the actual nomenclatural
> description is in the supps I would think it needs to be dated too, so we
> know its a permanent record, though maybe others may differ on that opinion.
> 
> In summary to me it is an unavailable name in its current state.
> 
> Cheers Scott
> 
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 11:20 AM Luis Ruedas via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>>
> 
>