Taxacom: Subspecies PROBABLY described

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Dear Mikhail,
without having consulted the original source, this sounds for me like a 
name in conflict with Art. 15.1. A statement "belongs probably" reflects 
a condition, and an indication "n. ssp." under such circumstances should 
not be acceptable. Not being equipped with a name-bearing type is in 
conflict with Art. 16.4.1, which makes it easier to neglect the new name 
in nomenclature.

If this helps

Best wishes
Francisco



-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 23.02.2022 um 17:31 schrieb Mikhail Daneliya via Taxacom:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I cannot decide about the status of a mysid crustacean subspecies. Maybe
> you can help.
> 
> Bacescu (1981) suggested that Boreomysis inermis from the Peru-Chile Trench
> "probably" belongs to a separate subspecies B.i.peruana. He provided
> characters and illustrations, and mentioned "n.ssp." after the name, but
> did not designate any types.
> 
> This "probably" confuses me.
> 
> What do you think about the availability here?
> 
> Best greetings!
> 
> Mikhail Daneliya
> Finland
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cefcac6455d654c480ea008d9f6eabad5%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637812310298762013%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=TlRZ40n4ZuM%2BHGulgEnlYXaWh605c1mNvi6jZBu68p4%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
> .
>