Source: http://iczn.ansp.org/wiki/Article16?action=diff&rev1=2&rev2=3
Timestamp: 2020-07-08 08:53:29
Document Index: 793896434

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 16', 'Art. 72', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 72', 'Art. 72', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 72', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 67', 'Art. 72']

FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 16.4.1
(a) The reference to Art. 72.2 should be deleted. Art. 16 is on names established after 1999, Art. 72.2 on names established before 2000.
(b) the term "explicit fixation" should be replaced by "explicit designation". Explicit has the meaning of "very specific, clear". The act is the designation, the result of the act is the fixation. A fixation cannot be unclear, it can only be effective or not. A designation can be required to be sufficiently clear. 2016-01-09 13:14:46
(a) The reference to Art. 72.2 should be deleted. Art. 16 is on names established after 1999, Art. 72.2 on names established before 2000. (b) the term "explicit fixation" should be replaced by "explicit designation". Explicit has the meaning of "very specific, clear". The act is the designation, the result of the act is the fixation. A fixation cannot be unclear, it can only be effective or not. A designation can be required to be sufficiently clear. 2016-01-09 13:14:17
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 16.4.2
Some addional points concernig this one and related Articles were raised in a discussion in Oct 2015 in the [Taxacom] thread "manuscript name question". See for example Gary Rodenberg's summary from 11 Oct 2015.
2015-10-11 08:46:56
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 16.4.2:
The provision that "the location" of the collection should be stated, should be modified and adapted to usual practice.
Well-known insitutions are usually given in the form of their near-standard acronyms, which are widely understood. Locations should be made obligatory only if specimens were deposited in scientists' private collections.
The regulation should be retrospective for all new names published after 1999.
This point was raised in Aug 2011 by Frank Krell in the [iczn-list] mailing list.
2011-08-25 13:16:48
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 16.1:
One new Article should be inserted:
Art. 16.1.1. If an expressly new name was proposed after 1999 without meeting the requirements of the Code (for example, if no name-bearing types were fixed), and if this was subsequently corrected in a second publication within the following 5 years, and without repeated explicit indication as intentionally new but with a bibliographical reference to the previous source, the name shall be available, with authorship and date taken from the second publication.
Example: Zerova & Seryogina proposed in 2010 two new names Eurytoma kuslitzkyi and Eurytoma cornuta (Insecta: Hymenoptera), but did not include the depositories of the respective name-bearing types thus rendering the new
names unavailable under Article 16.4.2. Zerova published a
short note in 2011 stating the depositories of the respective types with full reference to the original paper, without indicating the names as intentionally new in 2011. Both names were made available in 2011, authorship must be attributed to Zerova alone.
Such a solution was suggested in Aug 2011 in the [iczn-list] mailing list, brought forward by John Noyes who extrapolated that this was likely to apply to about 2000 names established in zoology since 2000 (alone 55 such cases were documented in Hymenoptera: Chalcidioidea, 1.3 % of the new names proposed since 2000). The example is the one brought forward by John Noyes.
2011-08-25 10:32:06
FranciscoWelterSchultes Art. 16.2 should be modified:
"16.2. Family-group names: type genus to be cited. In addition to satisfying the provisions of Articles 13-15, a new family-group name published after 1999 must be accompanied by citation of the name of the type genus (i.e. the name from which the family-group name is formed). The use of the expression "type genus" is not mandatory if the situation is unambiguous, but the name of the genus must be mentioned. If several genera were mentioned that could have formed the stem of the family name it must be stated which genus served as type."
This change would be useful because it is unclear what to do if the expression "type genus" was not used. This happens sometimes. It would not be a good idea to declare such family names as nomina nuda. An example is Mahajangasuchidae Sereno & Larsson, 2009 (Sauropsida), where the name Mahajangasuchus was mentioned but without authorship, and without the term "type genus". Some argued that the family name was a nomen nudum and forced the authors to publish a corrigendum shortly after in ZooKeys, others argued that the name was available from its first publication. No common aggreement about the Code's interpretation was achieved.
Sereno, P.C.; Larsson, H.C.E. 2009: Cretaceous crocodyliforms from the Sahara. ZooKeys, 28: 1–143. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.28.325 [Corrigenda in ZooKeys, 29: 73–74 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.29.368]
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mahajangasuchidae
Adding an explanation about its purpose would also be useful:
"The purpose of the Article seems to be to remove any doubt about the generic name that the family-group name is based on, and thus avoid situations like the one we have in what used to be the family Silphidae s.l. That family once included the valid genera Necrophilus and Necrophila (the former since removed to a separate family Agyrtidae). Gistel (1848) used a family name Necrophilidae while mentioning some other silphid (s.l.) genera but not mentioning either of these names, so the type genus he intended is unknown.
I treated this as an unavailable name (type genus ambiguous) when I proposed a new name based on Necrophilus."
(- Al Newton, e-mail 12-12-2009 to the editor of ZooKeys and others in a contribution to a discussion arised from the taxacom mailing list)
2009-12-12 06:35:13
"A name which was intentionally established as a new replacement name and later shown not to be justified, is regarded as a new name."
Such a clear statement would be very helpful here. The conflict of superiority between new replacement name and new name is a frequent problem. See also Art. 67.8 for genus-group names, Art. 72.4.4 for species-group names.
2008-12-16 04:33:21
"This is not required in cases of specimens for which a preservation is technically impossible, and for presumably endangered animals which were released to the wild after having been photographed and/or examined."
The term extant means "still in existence". At which time? Should perhaps be modified to "extant (at the time of establishment of the name)".
The first part of this amendment is needed because at least in certain basal groups of Plathelminthes it is technically impossible to conserve the specimens.
2008-11-13 09:00:38
Article16 (last edited 2009-04-27 12:42:11 by localhost)