Taxacom: Subspecies PROBABLY described

Fri Feb 25 16:03:08 CST 2022

 I suggest we need to keep two rather different issues apart here: 
(1) Originally included nominal species eligible for designation as the type species: clearly, if an author qualifies the inclusion of a nominal species, in any "negative" way, even "it probably belongs to this new genus", it disqualifies that nominal species from being the type species of the new genus. This makes perfect sense.
(2) Qualifications put on new taxa (particularly new nominal species), like (2a) "this is probably a new species, so I am describing it as such". Note that this is very different to (2b) "I am describing this specimen as a new species, in case it proves to be such". Clearly (2b) is something undesirable, but there is nothing wrong with (2a), since there is usually at least some doubt over whether a specimen (particularly a singleton) really represents a new species.
So, the Code does perhaps require making this all a bit clearer. It is quite difficult, I think, to express clearly the general difference between (2a) and (2b). Note also that any dodgy author who wishes to circumvent a prohibition of (2b) can easily do so by just not saying anything and describing it as new without comment! Therefore, it might be best just to forget about (2) altogether (at least going forward, if not retrospectively). However, (1) is still a good idea to uphold as it makes no sense to designate a type species which the original author had some doubts over its inclusion in his own new genus!
Stephen
    On Saturday, 26 February 2022, 09:37:29 am NZDT, Rosenberg,Gary via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:  

 Hi David,

That's an interesting argument, that expressing doubt is not the same as stating a condition. Article 67 provides an example: "A nominal species is deemed not to be originally included if it was doubtfully or conditionally included, or was cited as a species inquirenda, or as a species incertae sedis".

Article 11.5 says, "To be available, a name must be used as valid for a taxon when proposed", and its subarticle 11.5.1 says, "A name proposed conditionally for a taxon before 1961 is not be excluded on that account alone".  From that I conclude that a name introduced after 1960 may be excluded on that account alone. That means the Code's Glossary definition of "conditional" may need to be revised. The question is, how to capture the many ways in which zoologists express themselves.

The example for Article 11.9.3.6 says: "Lowe (1843) established the new fish species Seriola gracilis and at the same time conditionally proposed a new genus Cubiceps to contain that nominal species. By that action he is deemed to have established first the nominal species Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843 and then to have transferred it to the conditionally proposed genus Cubiceps, in which its name is cited as Cubiceps gracilis (Lowe, 1843)." [See also Opinion 461 https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F34656832%23page%2F535%2Fmode%2F1up&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf0e405d39e32403f9a1008d9f8aa9d7f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637814233941377330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=EJgxx6ObIwO14KMRV2OIIT1xv5v71pkiE0tuj5ZU1A4%3D&reserved=0).

Lowe (1843) said, "Still it is not unlikely that a comparison of the two fishes may warrant, on some future occasion, their separation from Seriola into a genus, which may be called Cubiceps" (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F30680060&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf0e405d39e32403f9a1008d9f8aa9d7f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637814233941377330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=msa%2B429rAEgUu1ketgdVVkgMkAK6Npin3Be%2BSFSB27o%3D&reserved=0) That shows in one case what the Code means by "conditionally". 

When an author says "probably", "possibly" or some similar expression in this context, are they not stating reservations about the validity of a name? If excluding such names as unavailable is undesirable, then the glossary definition of "conditional" should be changed.

One other point: Article 1.3.1 excludes from the provisions of the Code names proposed "for hypothetical concepts". If one regards species as hypothetical concepts, that excludes their names from the provisions of the Code. Perhaps this should be changed to "for hypothetical concepts without observational evidence".

Best wishes,
Gary Rosenberg
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
Drexel University

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of David Redei via Taxacom
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 2:39 AM
Cc: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
Subject: Re: Taxacom: Subspecies PROBABLY described

External.

I understand "conditional" in a completely different way.

For me, "conditional" means to propose it if and only if under certain conditions prevail. Here is an example: "I have an unusual individual of X-us y-us Linnaeus, 1758; in case this individual will be considered as different at species level, I propose the name X-us z-us sp. nov. for it".
Or there is a phylogeny and you propose new tribes for every branch
conditionally: "in case this clade is viewed as merit of a tribal rank taxon, I call it X-ini trib. nov." This is certainly undesirable.

Saying that it is "probably" a new species, therefore I propose a name for it, should be, in my opinion, considered as valid. After all, any statement about new species is a hypothesis. Any of my species descriptions could include a sentence, "The specimen differs from X-us y-us in characters A, B and C, therefore it is reasonable to consider it as a new species [= it is probably a new species], therefore I propose the name X-us z-us sp. nov.
for it". For me, this is not "conditional".

So the Code should require an explicit taxonomic act to be associated with the newly proposed name. In case of the "conditional" situation, there is no explicit act. If the author makes an explicit act, but expresses a certain level of doubt, it should not be regarded as a basis of regarding the act unavailable. Have you ever made any act in which your confidence reached a level of 100%? I never did in my life.

David Redei

<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Dwebmail%26utm_term%3Dicon&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf0e405d39e32403f9a1008d9f8aa9d7f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637814233941377330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2FOiSPmRD0m9f1OSx2pdQti4Oy1Jg01ThqvkyV%2B3sW9w%3D&reserved=0>
Virus-free.
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf0e405d39e32403f9a1008d9f8aa9d7f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637814233941377330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=el1I5g1Tx1lBhRHtmdSIgrcDGrnyTGpJKU6FgyBOvXw%3D&reserved=0
<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Dwebmail%26utm_term%3Dlink&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf0e405d39e32403f9a1008d9f8aa9d7f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637814233941377330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=1SdMCj8SlYbsKrbaD1qCBKyC6WHXeqn2QlwbgrWna%2Bk%3D&reserved=0>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 at 03:58, Douglas Yanega via Taxacom < taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> On 2/23/22 10:45 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom wrote:
> > Is "probably" conditional? The Code Glossary defines a "conditional 
> > proposal" as one with stated reservations. That should do it, for my 
> > feeling.
> >
> Specifically:
>
> *conditional*,/a/.
>    (1) Of the proposal of a name or a type fixation: one made with
>    stated reservations [Art. 15.1
>    <
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcode
> .iczn.org%2Fchapter-4-criteria-of-availability%2Farticle-15-names-and-
> nomenclatural-acts-published-after-1960%2F%23art-15-1&data=04%7C01
> %7Crosenberg.ansp%40drexel.edu%7C21bde01a28454834ec4908d9f768c94f%7C36
> 64e6fa47bd45a696708c4f080f8ca6%7C0%7C0%7C637812851709938724%7CUnknown%
> 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
> VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=0sCqo62Fed5tWVFKU4pjssmHPChV4V66xIR%2B3JJI
> yTY%3D&reserved=0
> >].
>
> We would have to see the exact wording used, I think, but I'm inclined 
> to not accept names like this - I suppose if it's in a "gray area" it 
> might be best to just maintain the status quo; that is, if the name 
> has been universally accepted since its proposal, then treat it as 
> available, and if it has not been used as valid since its proposal, 
> then treat it as unavailable.
>
> Peace,
>
> --
> Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology      Entomology Research Museum
> Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314    skype: dyanega
> phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
>
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf0e405d39e32403f9a1008d9f8aa9d7f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637814233941377330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=YMnIA0mOvig5XWrqGaIAlkI18s49QGCqNOZ1LAiQqAo%3D&reserved=0
>    "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>          is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For 
> list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> s.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=04%7C01%7Crosenberg.ansp%40drex
> el.edu%7C21bde01a28454834ec4908d9f768c94f%7C3664e6fa47bd45a696708c4f08
> 0f8ca6%7C0%7C0%7C637812851709938724%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC
> 4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sd
> ata=4nNRYLIKn%2Fa84bgRzhsyTxmg0lpX6kb32R1hq9ooj8A%3D&reserved=0
> 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%2Ftaxa
> com.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Crosenberg.ansp%40drexel.edu%7C2
> 1bde01a28454834ec4908d9f768c94f%7C3664e6fa47bd45a696708c4f080f8ca6%7C0
> %7C0%7C637812851709938724%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi
> LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=ZNRNq1
> yNqEsIgh0lAMmllO0YypFjNZS9PzH1BbJDXeM%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ku.edu%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=04%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf0e405d39e32403f9a1008d9f8aa9d7f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637814233941377330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=IBl0IcNteUhMmBKkHbncEtWRWkWAk2egRlZlEJs6r0U%3D&reserved=0
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%7Cf0e405d39e32403f9a1008d9f8aa9d7f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637814233941377330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=0fDV5h1PRs%2FzT0MHRkNY9t0IR%2FKLPpaF7Bjql4jn9b0%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
_______________________________________________
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%7Cf0e405d39e32403f9a1008d9f8aa9d7f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637814233941377330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=0fDV5h1PRs%2FzT0MHRkNY9t0IR%2FKLPpaF7Bjql4jn9b0%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.