Dear Fellow Taxacomers,

The following message was sent to the COMMISSION as comments on the Draft of the 4th edition of the ICZN. PKT of the COMMISSION encouraged me to send this to TAXACOM in order to stimulate discussion.

Robin Leech

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 12:52:58 -0600 (MDT) From: Robin Leech <rob...@nait.ab.ca> To: pkt at nhm.ac.uk Subject: Re: Comments on the Draft ICZN

7 August 1995 File:ICZN7Au.95

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature c/o The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD UK

Sirs:

I have reviewed the "Discussion Draft of the Proposed Fourth Edition" of the INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. My comments are these:

1. Throughout the text, for "i.e." and "e.g." read "i.e.," and "e.g.,". At present, application without the comma is inconsistently applied. For example, p.17, Article 58(2-14) has "i.e.," and "e.g.,", whereas Article 58(1) has "i.e.".

Reasoning: if we use a comma for "That is, I suggest...", and "For example, these are...", then we should use a comma for the Latin abbreviations.

2. On page 2 of the Explanatory Notes, I(a)(v), new names must be recorded as such in the ZOOLOGICAL RECORD within 5 years of publication, and Article 8(e) and Article 11(b) on the same topic.

I strongly disagree with this rule/law/article. A name validly published is valid forever, unless it is subsequently declared a junior synonym, a homonym, or is suppressed for nomenclatorial stability.

I offer the following in defense of my opinion.

Suppose in 1996 (later in the year when the ICZN is in effect), I publish a new genus name, XUS, with two new species names, XUS AYUS and XUS BEUS. Because of the medical importance of these two species, my two new species names are "snapped up" immediately by the medical profession, and the two new species are even given common names: the Ayus Tick and the Beus Tick.

For several reasons, but mainly because I published in a medical journal, the staff of the ZOOLOGICAL RECORD did not see my new genus and species names during the "5-year" period.

In the year 2002, a taxonomic revision of ticks of medical importance is published by another author who had known about my 1996 paper in the medical journal, and XUS, XUS AYUS, and XUS BEUS are cited in his revision. When the author submitted his taxonomic revision for publication, it was reviewed by 2 reviewers, each of whom knew about my 1996 paper, and who had themselves used my names in their own papers. Each reviewer found that the names in my 1996 paper were validly published, and so did not search in the ZOOLOGICAL RECORD to confirm that my names had been "picked up" by Z.R. In the taxonomic revision of 2002, my names are cited as XUS Leech, 1996, XUS AYUS Leech, 1996, and XUS BEUS Leech, 1996. Thus, my names appeared first in 1996 validly, and are now well entrenched in the literature, both through medical/public use and a taxonomic revision of the group.

If the situation mentioned above had to be unscrambled, merely because of the installation of an arbitrary "5-year law", it would cause chaos.

In January 1971, I read that Article 23(b) of the 2nd ICZN had been repealed. This was the so-called "50-year law". I mentioned this to an entomological scientist He was crushed. He had prepared 6 manuscripts for publication and was waiting for April 1971. At that time, he would submit those papers for publication. This scientist worked on organisms that are little worked on, and the 50-year-old names had been carried during those 50 years only in abstracting and bibliographic works.

My point is that arbitrary rules such as the 5-year law and the 50-year law promote laziness, opportunism and dishonesty. I know that we are all honest, and that we have no crosses to bear, but....

It is nice to be able to have one source to go to for new names, the ZOOLOGICAL RECORD, but I feel that the problems caused by installing the 5-year law are greater than the possible junior synonyms and homonymy problems that might arise if the 5-year law is not installed. Most authors know the other workers in their fields, and usually get reprints from them, so they are aware of names that have been validly published in their study areas - even before they go to Z.R.

3. Whether you agree or not with my opinion on the 5-year law, I feel that a recommendation should be made for Article 8 as follows:

It is the responsibility of author(s) to ensure that a copy (reprint, separate or photocopy) of a publication containing the names of a new taxon, or new taxa, be sent to the Commission, by registered mail if necessary.

4. Page 9, Article 28, Recommendation 28B, Example, line 5: for might, read can.

I believe that you will find that the mosquito-ologists already use ONLY the two-letter abbreviations such as AE. for AEDES, and AN. for ANOPHELES.

5. Page 15, Article 50(a), line 2: where it read (Art. 8), read (Art. 8, Art. 11).

I trust tht you will examine and consider the comments above in the positive, constructive manner in which they are offered.

Yours sincerely,