Re: Hoser Python Names Available under ICZN Rules

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]

Posted by WW on March 07, 2002 at 03:26:24:

In Reply to: Hoser Python Names Available under ICZN Rules posted by Richard Wells on March 06, 2002 at 21:27:03:

I agree that Hoser's names are validly published, as they fulfil (minimally) the conditions of the 4th edition of the Code.

: My only concern with Ray Hoser's conclusions on Leiopython merely concern the extent of relevance of the available synonymy. I just do not know what represents topotypic albertisi, and although the naming of the dark coloured population of albertisi as a new species might appear needed, what if an older unused senior synonym exists? It is generally believed that albertisi was originally described from western material, but my concern, is that the eastern dark population, also ranges into the region where the original material of albertisi was collected. As I said, I don't know enough about Leiopython albertisi to know what the hell's going on, but I do think that the Hoser paper did not adequately address the available synonymic name. Of course, I do know that the existance of an older unused synonym may not matter a Rat's Rectum, for the new Rules now make it easy to just ignore an older name if it has not been used for so many years, bla, bla, bla. Therefore, Hoser and others might well argue that, even if a technically prior synonym is appropriate for the dark-coloured population, because the older name is an unused name it now has no standing, and Hoser's new name should be the valid name.

This is only corect under certain conditions. Specifically, in order to discard a senior synonym, you need to demonstrate that it has not been used as valid since the year 1900 AND that the junior name has been used as valid in at least 25 works, by at least 10 authors, within the last 50 years, and over a period of at least 10 years. (ICZN Article 23.9.1)

Under these conditions, suppression of the senior synonym can be made without reference tot he Commission by explicitly citing both names together and declaring the junior synonym to be valid, referring to the article.

If these conditions are not all fulfilled, then the matter has to be referred to the Commission for Adjudication. As things stand at present, any senior synonym would therefore supercede Hoser's names.

: As I said earlier, I just would like to see the earlier names dealt with (say by examination of the Types, and/or evaluation of the original descriptions, before I can support any taxonomic change in albertisi.

Isn't that something that the describer of the new taxa should have done in the first place, precisely to avoid the uncertainties we are seeing here?

Cheers,

Wolfgang

Follow Ups:

Sinking Nomen oblitums under the new code Scott Thomson 03/07/02 (2)
- Re: Sinking the New Code Richard Wells 03/11/02 (1)
  - Re: Sinking the New Code Scott Thomson 03/11/02 (0)
Excuse me! Raymond Hoser 03/07/02 (12)
- Ray: Did you look at the Type of Leiopython gracilis??? Richard Wells 03/12/02 (2)
  - Re: Ray: Did you look at the Type of Leiopython gracilis??? Scott Thomson 03/13/02 (1)
    - Re: Ray: Did you look at the Type of Leiopython gracilis??? Richard Wells 03/14/02 (0)
- Dealing with Synonyms means publishing a Synonomy! Scott Thomson 03/07/02 (0)
- Did you examnine the types? n/p WW 03/07/02 (7)
  - A/ Yes, no, on my behalf and Do you ever stop surfing on Kingsnake? Raymond Hoser 03/07/02 (6)
    - Looking at snakes... WW 03/07/02 (5)
      - WW You Missed your vocation Raymond Hoser 03/07/02 (4)
        
        Re: WW You Missed your vocation WW 03/08/02 (3)
        
        Vindicated - WW You Missed your vocation Raymond Hoser 03/08/02 (2)
        
        Then repost the info. WW 03/08/02 (1)
        
        Going bush>> Jerry Feldner 03/09/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : I agree that Hoser's names are validly published, as they fulfil (minimally) the conditions of the 4th edition of the Code. : : My only concern with Ray Hoser's conclusions on Leiopython merely concern the extent of relevance of the available synonymy. I just do not know what represents topotypic albertisi, and although the naming of the dark coloured population of albertisi as a new species might appear needed, what if an older unused senior synonym exists? It is generally believed that albertisi was originally described from western material, but my concern, is that the eastern dark population, also ranges into the region where the original material of albertisi was collected. As I said, I don't know enough about Leiopython albertisi to know what the hell's going on, but I do think that the Hoser paper did not adequately address the available synonymic name. Of course, I do know that the existance of an older unused synonym may not matter a Rat's Rectum, for the new Rules now make it easy to just ignore an older name if it has not been used for so many years, bla, bla, bla. Therefore, Hoser and others might well argue that, even if a technically prior synonym is appropriate for the dark-coloured population, because the older name is an unused name it now has no standing, and Hoser's new name should be the valid name. : This is only corect under certain conditions. Specifically, in order to discard a senior synonym, you need to demonstrate that it has not been used as valid since the year 1900 AND that the junior name has been used as valid in at least 25 works, by at least 10 authors, within the last 50 years, and over a period of at least 10 years. (ICZN Article 23.9.1) : Under these conditions, suppression of the senior synonym can be made without reference tot he Commission by explicitly citing both names together and declaring the junior synonym to be valid, referring to the article. : If these conditions are not all fulfilled, then the matter has to be referred to the Commission for Adjudication. As things stand at present, any senior synonym would therefore supercede Hoser's names. : : As I said earlier, I just would like to see the earlier names dealt with (say by examination of the Types, and/or evaluation of the original descriptions, before I can support any taxonomic change in albertisi. : Isn't that something that the describer of the new taxa should have done in the first place, precisely to avoid the uncertainties we are seeing here? : Cheers, : Wolfgang

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]