[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [dinosaur] Oculudentavis again



Gesendet:ÂSamstag, 08. August 2020 um 19:49 Uhr
Von:Â"Ben Creisler" <bcreisler@gmail.com>

>ÂWe will see what the authors of the new description do with the name. If 
>they decide to use Oculudentavis, then the name would be valid in the full 
>sense with a non-retracted description and phylogenetic analysis (as opposed 
>to being published as an available name but with a possibly unusable 
>[retracted] diagnostic description).

I can only repeat how obvious it seems to me, and evidently to Peter Paul van 
Dijk, that diagnoses/descriptions cannot be undone by calling them retracted. 
Only the Commission can declare an otherwise published work as "to be treated 
as unpublished" â the publisher cannot, and the authors cannot either.

"Valid", by the way, means something else under the ICZN. (The choice of terms 
is quite confusing; I messed this up myself in the original submission of the 
latest paper I contributed to and only caught it during revision.) A name is 
"valid" if it is the name that ought to be used, meaning it is "available" and 
has precedence over all objective synonyms, subjective synonyms and homonyms. 
(Which names are its subjective synonyms is a taxonomic matter, not a 
nomenclatural one.) A name is "available" if it is properly published and has 
precedence over all homonyms. (This is a purely nomenclatural matter.)

> Some details of their original description of the skull would still be 
> accurate enough to establish a distinct and diagnosable taxon.

As Mickey M said, that doesn't matter, because diagnoses/descriptions don't 
need to be accurate. (If they needed to be accurate, hardly any name would 
survive more than a few years after all.) Quote:

"13.1. Requirements

To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the 
provisions of Article 11 and must

13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words 
characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or

13.1.2 [...] [by a citation of the above], or

13.1.3 be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an 
available name [...]."

The "purported" bit means that only the intention needs to be there (and, I 
suppose, obvious enough).

> Note that just because a name was registered with Zoobank, there may still be 
> objections and problems. The "outlaw" self-published Australian herpetologist 
> Raymond Hoser has published dozens of new generic names that show up as 
> validly published in some databases (including Zoobank), but the vast 
> community of academic herpetologists has worked hard to avoid ever citing his 
> work or using his names. There has even been an appeal to the ICZN to 
> invalidate his publications.

As Mickey M said, the appeal exists precisely because Hoser's names (generic, 
specific and other) _are_ available. The Commission has a choice of declaring 
Hoser's works unpublished, or the names unavailable, or the names to lack 
precedence over junior synonyms where such exist â but nobody else can do 
even one of these things according to the letter of the Code.

Later:

> Note that this needs to be formally published in a journal to establish the 
> use of the name Oculudentavis based on the original holotype.

No. The original paper, despite its retraction, establishes the _name_ 
Oculudentavis based on the original holotype; the _use_ of the name does not 
need to be established. The Code deals in legalities and legal fictions, not in 
real usage, except where it explicitly says otherwise.