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

Thu Aug 12 12:07:14 CDT 2021

Hi everyone,

when looking at this I started out just looking if this format would be
deemed published for the purposes of nomenclature, which it was not. At
that point I stopped. The name was unavailable. I agree with Francisco and
Thomas also who looked at other aspects of the paper. In recent years I
have found this necessary when reviewing papers as I was asked to review a
paper that would have failed under 8.5.3 also. In that case I warned the
authors and advised them to register the name themselves, archive it and
provide this information to ZooBank themselves, and then include it in the
paper. The journal they were publishing in did none of this and even
clearly indicated it was print to order only for its print run, hence only
its electronic version counted for nomenclatural purposes. So the paper in
question had to meet 8.5.3. Personally I felt the journal was responsible
in that case, as most authors assume these nuances of the Code are met by
the Journal and it was only that the paper was reviewed by someone versed
in the Code that this paper was published and the new name was not
immediately seen as unavailable. To me that this can occur is a problem.
Clearly papers that present new names should have at least one
nomenclatural reviewer who will check that the Code is met by the paper and
the Journal. It would be preferable if journals that have no understanding
or intent to meet the code don`t publish new names.

In this case discussed here, the pity to me is that although rodents are by
no means a group I study, the authors seem to have significant information
and data in support of their hypothesis, with better review and practices
by the journal in question it should have been a good nomenclatural
publication that would not have been questioned as it has been here. This
is a pity and a failure. I hope the authors get the opportunity to repair
this with a new publication preferably in a journal that can help them.

Cheers Scott

Cheers Scott

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 8:57 PM Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman <
viper007 at live.com.au> wrote:

> Scott Thomson,
>
> I am in rare agreeance with you! (see below).
> My advice to third parties is tell the author/s and get them to fix their
> mess so they can claim name authority and to third parties, give them at
> least a year to do so, as per the ICZN guidelines.
>
> All the best
>
> RAYMOND HOSER
>
> PS Refer also to an earlier publication at:
>
> Hoser, R. T. 2015. PRINO (Peer reviewed in name only) journals: When
> quality control in scientific publications fails.
> Australasian Journal of Herpetology 26:3-64.
> Published 25 May 2015.
> FULL TEXT AVAILABLE AT:
> http://www.smuggled.com/issue-26-pages-3-64.pdf
> PRINO (Peer reviewed in name only) journals: When quality control in
> scientific publications fails.
> <http://www.smuggled.com/issue-26-pages-3-64.pdf>
> Available online at www.herp.net Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All
> rights reserved Australasian Journal of Herpetology Hoser 2015 -
> Australasian Journal of ...
> www.smuggled.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Scott
> Thomson via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 12 August 2021 8:23 AM
> *To:* Luis Ruedas <ruedas at pdx.edu>
> *Cc:* taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] New species/taxon descriptions—compatibility
> with ICZN: question
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
> --
> Scott Thomson
>
> Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
> Petrópolis, Manaus
> State of Amazonas, 69055-010
> Brasil
>
> http://www.carettochelys.com
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
> Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
> <
> https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#
> >
> Skype: Faendalimas
> Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
> Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
Scott Thomson

Centro de Estudos dos Quelônios da Amazônia - CEQUA
Petrópolis, Manaus
State of Amazonas, 69055-010
Brasil

http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
<https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
Skype: Faendalimas
Mobile Phone Brasil: +55 11 98178 7270
Whatsapp: +55 11 98178 7270