Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829

Fri Sep 1 06:06:39 CDT 2023

Dear Thomas,
I think that conditional proposal of a new name should not be confused with
uncertainty that is intrinsic in any scientific process, including taxonomy.
In fact, we speak of "taxonomic hypothesis", even when we introduce new
names.
That's normal and has nothing to do with a conditional proposal.

A conditional proposal for a name, means "if this turns out to be new, I
call it like this"
And this is exactly what Shakey did. Preceded by "I have no clue why this
could be new, but it probably is on a statistical basis".
Which is deeply different from saying "I think this is new, for none of the
existing species concept/available names applies, and so I call it
like this", that is what we do implicitly or explicitly in everyday regular
taxonomic practice.

Otherwise, note that virtually any statement expressed by a human being
implies "in my view...", "I think that..."

Coming to your question:

*You state that in your opinion "each name was proposed conditionally".
This would imply that each name was proposed with stated
reservation(s).Could you specify what those reservations are?*
Answer:
" *we choose to ignore his species concepts, and therefore we do not
attempt to coordinate with his names*"
= we are aware that there are existing, valid names

"*few synonyms will be generated in our current effort*"
"
*Some of these may also be included in our revision, but we estimate that
the total number of synonyms generated by the current manuscript will be
less than ten. and these can only beresolved later by obtaining barcodes
from Dasch’s holotypes or topotypic specimens that are identical
morphologically*"
= we did not check if there is a valid name that applies to each of the
taxa we identified. Others can do that. And, for each of these taxa, if no
valid name is found, we give one.
= each of these names is proposed as valid, unless a previous valid names
apply

that is a reservation, i.e. a conditional proposal.

Cheers, Marco
ᐧ

Il giorno ven 1 set 2023 alle ore 12:07 Thomas Pape via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> ha scritto:

> Dear Marco,
>
> I agree that the Code can be considered "a working tool", and it is
> important to realise that no legislation can cover every thinkable
> situation.
> But in order to be an efficient working tool, the exact wording is
> important as it often has decisive importance.
>
> Article 11.5 runs like this:
> "To be available, a name must be used as valid for a taxon when proposed".
> This is not a requirement, that the author 'knows for sure' or 'can
> guarantee' or 'is correct' that a given name is valid. The decisive issue
> is how the author uses the name.
>
> You say that: "Sharkey did not judge his names correct (sensu ICZN) ...".
> But neither did he consider any of the names invalid (or in any other way
> 'incorrect'). The names are used as valid for the taxa they are proposed
> for, and therefore fulfill the requirements of Art. 11.5.
> You state that in your opinion "each name was proposed conditionally".
> This would imply that each name was proposed with stated reservation(s).
> Could you specify what those reservations are?
>
> I see only a very general reservation that would translate into something
> like:
> -- "unless there is already an available name for this taxon".
> -- "unless the name will later be shown to be a junior synonym".
>
> This is in a way implicit in every nominal taxon proposed.
>
> Think of the scenario that a species is discovered to actually be two
> different species, that can be separated (at least for now) only by
> molecular data. What if the name-bearing type has been lost, and somebody
> describes both of the two species as new? The author would be almost sure
> that one of the new names must be a junior synonym, but he/she cannot tell
> which. I would consider both names as available, and I would have to treat
> them as valid until a solution is found, e.g., the designation of a neotype
> for the old name chosen from one of the two holotypes (to settle
> unambiguously which name is synonymous) or for that matter it could be a
> suppression of the old name.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu> On Behalf Of Marco Uliana
> via Taxacom
> Sent: 1. september 2023 09:04
> To: Taxa com <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Minimalist revision of Mesochorus Gravenhorst, 1829
>
> 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%7C089cb9920a7c48a05bc508dbaadb8c23%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638291632494182361%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4WcIETGAZY8gHL%2BaTO8g1BopyTQuquxnrwgKysX9sDo%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%7C089cb9920a7c48a05bc508dbaadb8c23%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638291632494182361%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4WcIETGAZY8gHL%2BaTO8g1BopyTQuquxnrwgKysX9sDo%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>