Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829

Fri Sep 1 04:57:44 CDT 2023

Stephen, I agree.
My underlying idea, indeed, was that an explicit ruling/expression by ICZN
would be necessary in this situation.

Cheers, Marco
ᐧ

Il giorno ven 1 set 2023 alle ore 10:41 Stephen Thorpe <
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> ha scritto:

>
> Marco, I am sympathetic to your point of view, but we need to be
> pragmatic. I suspect that 99% of taxonomists will be of the opposite
> opinion. They will look at each individual new species and see nothing to
> indicate conditional proposal for any of them. To some extent, this may be
> due to the current practice of extracting "treatments" from publications,
> as if these were stand alone entities, which, of course, they are not, but
> busy taxonomists simply aren't going to want to spend that much time
> nitpicking large whole works (imagine a work of hundreds of pages in which
> one sentence anywhere in the work could potentially invalidate all of the
> proposed new species!). However, if the ICZN were of a mind to invalidate
> Sharkey et al.'s new taxa, they could do so using your suggested
> interpretation of the Code.
> Cheers, Stephen
> On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 08:25:57 pm NZST, Marco Uliana <
> marco.uliana.1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Stephen.
> But, why should one argue that such a statement should be done for a
> "particular" name?
> Were all names treated in the same way in that work, including predictive
> analysis of potential synonymy? I think so.
> If we assume that there was a conditional proposal (i.e. according to the
> glossary, a reservation about the correctness of names), then it is for
> each of them.
>
> To me, writing that there are potential synonyms that you did not care to
> check, equals to state that you are not sure whether the names you propose
> are correct or not.
>
> You wrote: So, they might have said "Only one of the following new species
> is in fact already described". Did you want to imply "and each of our names
> can apply to it" ?
>
> Sorry, I can't help but see it this way :-)
>
>
> ᐧ
>
> Il giorno ven 1 set 2023 alle ore 09:49 Stephen Thorpe <
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> ha scritto:
>
> Marco,
> Putting it another way, they can be interpreted as saying that each of
> their new names is *potentially* conditionally proposed, but they don't
> actually conditionally propose any particular name. If you were to be
> ultra-pedantic, you could I suppose argue that *potentially*
> conditionally proposed collapses to simply be equivalent to conditionally
> proposed, but then we are getting into a level of pedantry that 99.9% of
> taxonomists are vener going to approach when trying to apply the Code, so
> it is all just "dust in the wind"!
> Stephen
>
> On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 07:38:18 pm NZST, Stephen Thorpe via
> Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Marco,There is no objective right or wrong interpretation of the Code on
> this issue. One could argue that since no *particular* new name was
> conditionally proposed, they are all available. So, they might have said
> "Only one of the following new species is in fact already described",
> without specifying which one. This wouldn't, in my view, make them *all*
> conditional!Cheers, Stephen    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 07:04:08 pm
> NZST, Marco Uliana via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks Richard.
>
> About the second point you raised ("code warriors"), I think ICZN should be
> considered just as a working tool that taxonomists are required to apply.
> Application of rules should not be dependent on how much addressees are
> aware of, willing to cope with, or on what one assumes to be correct "by
> default".
>
> Getting back to the specific case, I find unquestionable that each name was
> proposed conditionally, since doubt on potential synonymy was expressed
> collectively.
> See also 11.5, "*Names to be used as valid when proposed*"
> *"valid"*, from the ICZN glossary: "*in the case of a name, which is the
> correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment*"
> From Sharkey: "*few synonyms will be generated in our current effort*",
> "*The
> probability of any of these [already described] ten species being in the
> current revision can be estimated [...]*".
>
> In my view, these sentences are not consistent with "Sharkey judged that
> each name he proposed was the correct name for the taxon", that is what the
> code requires.
> Rather, they fit much better with "Sharkey did not judge his names
> correct (sensu ICZN), as this would have required coordinating them with
> the pre-existing ones he choosed not to apply".
>
> Marco
>
>
> Il giorno gio 31 ago 2023 alle ore 19:14 Richard Pyle <
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> ha scritto:
>
> > Two things:
> >
> > 1) I didn't see Thomas Pape's reply along the lines of Art. 15.1 before
> > sending my missive, but I'm happy to see we agree on how to interpret
> that
> > Article (though I do acknowledge there is a potentially legitimate
> > alternative interpretation)
> >
> > 2) My SINCERE apologies to those who read the Digest version of this
> > list!  I will try to be better about trimming the superfluous "fat" of
> > quoted and re-quoted prior messages when I respond to threads like this.
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> >
> > Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> > Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
> > Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
> > 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
> > Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
> > eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> > BishopMuseum.org
> > Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through
> the
> > exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and
> > environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 7:09 AM
> > > To: 'Stephen Thorpe' <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; 'Marco Uliana'
> > > <marco.uliana.1 at gmail.com>
> > > Cc: 'Taxa com' <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; 'Carlos Alberto Martínez
> > > Muñoz' <biotemail at gmail.com>
> > > Subject: RE: Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst,
> 1829
> > >
> > > > My personal view on this situation is to simply chose a justifiable
> > > > interpretation of the Code and run with it.
> > >
> > > I always advocate that, when there is obvious doubt or acknowledged
> > > ambiguity in the Code, one should always err on the side of "assuming
> > it's
> > > available unless there is a clear and explicit reason why it fails to
> > fulfill some
> > > criterion of the Code".
> >
> >
> > ᐧ
> _______________________________________________
> 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=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C89809f4b9b0e4a4a959a08dbaad1ec3f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638291591155151899%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=soF2gW4Etgy4aCd8s8WPjkoO6BYHxGnqviobsngHogg%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C89809f4b9b0e4a4a959a08dbaad1ec3f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638291591155151899%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=soF2gW4Etgy4aCd8s8WPjkoO6BYHxGnqviobsngHogg%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>
>