Taxacom: Subspecies PROBABLY described

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Rich is right, Art. 16.4.1 is not an issue for names proposed before 
2000. I overlooked the 1981 date.

Is "probably" conditional? The Code Glossary defines a "conditional 
proposal" as one with stated reservations. That should do it, for my 
feeling.

Cheers
Francisco

Am 23.02.2022 um 18:36 schrieb Douglas Yanega via Taxacom:
> On 2/23/22 8:31 AM, Mikhail Daneliya via Taxacom wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> This is very similar to a recent publication involving carabid beetles, 
> with two "proposed" new subspecies names in the text, and a recent 
> bumblebee paper with a "proposed" new species name in the text. Without 
> explicit type designations, none of these names are available. That this 
> seems to be happening so often suggests that there are a lot of editors 
> and reviewers that are unfamiliar with the Code. At the very least, if a 
> person intends to SUGGEST that something MIGHT be a taxon but is not 
> prepared to formally describe it, someone needs to discourage them from 
> proposing a name for it, and suggest instead to just give it an 
> arbitrary designation like "subspecies X", or "subspecies 3", that can't 
> be mistaken for a name.
> 
> Peace,
>