 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
3 messages in edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacomComments on ICZN 4th Draft| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Robin Leech | Aug 10, 1995 9:15 am | |
| Wolfgang Wuster | Aug 11, 1995 9:30 am | |
| GB:'X0B$4fAB92GB5 | Aug 11, 1995 10:32 am |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | Comments on ICZN 4th Draft | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Wolfgang Wuster (bss...@BANGOR.AC.UK) | |
| Date: | Aug 11, 1995 9:30:18 am | |
| List: | edu.ku.nhm.mailman.taxacom | |
On Thu, 10 Aug 1995, Robin Leech wrote:
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. [snip] 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. [snip] 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.
I disagree with this. I am pretty sure that any new names published in Medical Journals are very likely to be picked up by the ZR. The "ZR-rule" is aimed at preventing names published in entirely obscure "journals" or Bulletins with a circulation of about 10 from later destabilising the nomenclature. I have no idea how much of a problem this is in medical entomology, but in my field (herpetology), it is a BIG problem.
Many amateurs feel that they have a new species in front of them, and publish the name in extraordinarily obscure bulletins, which other workers will be hard-pushed to find. Examples which spring to mind are species of venomous snakes described in leaflets handed out at Zoos in Thailand, Bulletins of Ecuadorian universities, aquarium magazines, etc.
Determining whether such publications constitute valid publications under the terms of the Code can be difficult, and very often information is simply not available and enquiries remain without response. The 5-year rule provides a more objective way of determining validity. I agree that in many cases, such publications will be known to other workers, and in such cases these other workers should send copies to the ZR. However, a 5-year rule will avoid such publications being discovered after, say, 15 years (too recent to be sunk under normal Code provisions) and then being used to destabilise the nomenclature.
No system is perfect, but in my experience, some system of checks against such extremely obscure references is needed in the Code. Personally, I feel that the requirements do not go anywhere near far enough.
-- ******************************************************************************** Dr. Wolfgang Wuster - Research Fellow Snailmail: E-mail: bss166 at bangor.ac.uk School of Biological Sciences Voicemail: +44 1248 383735 University of Wales Fax: +44 1248 371644 Bangor LL57 2UW "If you see a light at the end of the tunnel, Wales, UK it is probably a train coming your way."