Source: http://iczn.ansp.org/wiki/Article12
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:44:31+00:00

Document:
Article 12. Names published before 1931.
12.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published before 1931 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication.
Example. A beetle genus-group name Isarthron was proposed by Dejean (1835) with eight associated species-group names. The latter were cited with an author (e.g. "luridum Fabr."); although no bibliographic references were given, by context the names can be assigned unambiguously to nominal species and Isarthron was therefore made available.
12.2.8. the description of the work of an organism [Arts. 23.3.2.3, 72.5.1].
12.3. Exclusions. The mention of any of the following does not in itself constitute a description, definition, or indication: a vernacular name, locality, geological horizon, host, label, or specimen.
"the expressed proposal of a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name, whether or not required by any provision of the Code;"
This would be useful because by using the term "expressly" [porposed] in 13.1.3, the treatment of names after 1930 is aligned with the definition of a new replacement name in the Glossary. The absence of an equivalent term here in 12.2.3 leads to the not desired misunderstanding that the definition for a new replacement name would differ in names published before 1931.
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 12.1 again, "denote"
Examples should be given to illustrate what does NOT consitute a "description to denote the taxon". Alonso-Zarazaga saw himself forced to publish such a clarification in the case of the Catalonian gastropod Helix companyonii, mentioned by Companyo in 1837 with a remark that this species ressembled much two other species, to explain that this was not a "description to denote the taxon". This clarification was subsequently not accepted by all Catalonian authors because some argued that Alonso-Zarazaga 2004 was incorrect, and Companyo's 1837 remark did constitute a description (checklist of Catalonian molluscs, Alba et al. 2011, Spira 4: 54, they used the 1837 name for the involved species and explained that the dispute was going on).
So it would be helpful to give examples how to understand the term "denote" which is not explained in the Glossary.
Present in Suriname; can be seen in autumn; occurs only in the Wenlockian geological horizon; beautiful; resembles very much species B and C; size like in species B of the same genus; colour differs from species B; DNA differs from species B; molecular distance far from species B; can be distinguished very easily from species B by its very well recognisable morphological characters.
The passage "irrespective of whether the names are stated to be new" should be deleted. This can only cause misunderstandings. Names established before 2000 do not need a statement "new", names established after 1999 do always need it and the statement in Art. 12.2.6 contrasts Art. 16.1 (and provokes the question, which Article is superior?).
"12.2.6. a combined description of a new nominal genus and a single new nominal species, which then provides a description for each name individually, disregarding the author's possible intent to provide the description either only for the species or only for the genus. A bibliographical reference to a previous description shall be equivalent to a description. An illustration is a description in the sense of this Article."
("or definition" can be deleted because a definition is only a special form of a description, see my other comment, defintion is already included in the term "description"). Illustrations and bibliographical references need to be covered (it makes no sense to exclude them).
The sentence "An illustration is a description in the sense of this Article." could also be used to replace Art. 12.2.7, and would not be necessary here if covered elsewhere.
FranciscoWelterSchultes 12.2.6 should be specified.
A solution should be found for those cases where a description was only given for the genus, but not for the species, and where the context implied that the description for the genus should not have referred to the species (= new genus established with a description and with one nomen nudum included).
(a) Both names were made available, the entire description and type specimens cited for the genus would also refer to the species, against the original intention of the author.
(b) Only the generic name was made available, not the specific name.
Example: Lamarck (1801) established a new genus Testacella (Gastropoda) with a description and some figures published by Favanne (1780), and included one species T. haliotoides which was presented without description but with a reference to particular specimens deposited in a collection in Paris. It was clear form the context that the concept of the species should not include Favanne's specimens.
(a) The name T. haliotoides was made available at this occasion with Favanne's specimens and those from the collection in Paris as types, against the expressed intention of the author.
(b) The name T. haliotoides was not made available at this occasion.
This point was raised and discussed in the [iczn-list] mailing list in Aug 2011. There was no preference for any of both possible solutions. Solution (a) would probably cover most cases adequately.
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 12.1. should be specified more clearly in terms of usage of the term "taxon", and another proposal for a refinement of the term "to denote".
12.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published before 1931 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must be accompanied by a description of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication. These do not necessarily need to refer to its nominal taxon; descriptions or indications for subordinate taxa are also acceptable.
"To denote" means that in the original author's perspective a description must not be identically equal to another taxon classified in the same group at the same rank.
Examples: Férussac 1821 established Helix quimperiana without description for the nominal taxon as such, but gave a bibliographical reference to a figure for a subordinate variant "alpha". The name Helix quimperiana was made available at this occasion. He also established Helix lenticula without proper description for the name as such, but gave a short description for its subordinate variant alpha. The name Helix lenticula was also made available at this occasion.
This could replace my proposal to add an additional article 12.2.9.
Only those who know extremely well the finely tuned language of the Code do remark the difference between "nominal taxon" and "taxon" (and consult the Glossary with its definition of "taxon" that a taxon encompasses all subordinate taxa).
"12.2.9. a description, definition or illustration referring to one or more distinct variants (e. g. by name, letter or number) in the same work."
Example: Férussac (1821) established Helix lenticula without proper description for the name as such, but he gave a short description for its subordinate variant alpha. The name Helix lenticula was made available by this act.
This is necessary because in malacology we have several cases of this kind involving relatively important names of species (Caracollina lenticula, Elona quimperiana, Xerocrassa cretica (all from Férussac, 1821), Oxychilus draparnaudi (Beck, 1837) and others). Malacologists are undecided how to interprete the Code and except Oxychilus draparnaudi (where the above interpretation was implicitely applied in Op. 336 and Op. 1924) the species have currently no commonly recognized authors, so such a passage in the Code would be helpful.
This case was probably only forgotten by the Committee. It would make no sense that a bibliographical reference to a description of a subordinate variant in a previously published non-binominal work is recognized as an indication, but not a description for a subordinate variant published simultaneously in the same work.
The types for such names should be those of all mentioned distinct variants together.
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 12.1 should be modified.
The term "definition" includes entirely the term "description", and should be removed from this article to avoid misunderstandings. It is not possible to give a definition without a description.
It would also be useful to add a statement to underline the meaning of the term "denote" (French "désigne") used here and not defined in the Glossary.
12.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published before 1931 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must be accompanied by a description of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication.
A description must not be identically equal of another taxon classified in the same group at the same rank.
Example: Künkel 1908 studied the behaviour of terrestrial gastropods of the genus Arion, compared the behaviour of several species and mentioned a new name Arion simrothi. Künkel gave several characters for A. simrothi, but reported the same characters also for A. subfuscus. Künkel did not give a description that denoted A. simrothi.
FranciscoWelterSchultes 12.2.5 - the example is not sufficiently accurate, the available name of the involved species should be added.
"A coleopteran genus-group name Isarthron was proposed by Dejean (1835) with eight associated species-group names. The latter were cited with an author (e.g. "luridum Fabr."); although no bibliographic references were given, by context the names can be assigned unambiguously to nominal species (Cerambyx luridus Linné, 1767 was an available name) and Isarthron Dejean, 1835 was therefore made available."
"12.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published before 1931 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must be accompanied by a description, a definition or an illustration of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication."
"12.2.1. a bibliographic reference to a previously published description, definition or illustration even if the description, definition or illustration is contained in a work published before 1758, or that ..."
An indication as understood here in Art. 12.1 is a term carrying the act of pointing to an indirect source of information. The term "indication" should not be abused. An illustration does not belong to this category, since it is a direct source of information in the same way as is a description or definition in words. This is inconsistent and makes it unnecessarily difficult to read and understand the Code, and to find the passage concerning the illustrations.

References: Art. 12
 Art. 12
 Art. 16
 Art. 12
 Art. 12
 Art. 12
 Art. 12