tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post4086080563038690935..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: A Question of AvailabilityChristopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-70435049928974686332010-05-10T00:47:32.144+08:002010-05-10T00:47:32.144+08:00Chris, I agree. More often than not, a redescripti...Chris, I agree. More often than not, a redescription simply requires a reexamination of the holotype and new specimens, and the making of some proper drawings or taking of photographs. If the holotype is lost or damaged the redescriber may designate a lectotype at the same time, but all of this would be retained under the original name. A good example of this is HH Ross's paper on Trichoptera Lectotypes from the Harvard MCZ (1944). The original types by Banks were either in terrible condition or the primary descriptions were useless, so Ross retained all the names and just put new descriptions, drawings and type specimens on them.<br /><br />At least, that's how I would approach it.<br /><br />~KaiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-67157819227287515392010-05-04T21:40:08.075+08:002010-05-04T21:40:08.075+08:00So the real trick here is to see if libraries trea...So the real trick here is to see if libraries treat these inserts as anything more (or less) than a Nat Geo Mag map insert.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-78586612566672303822010-04-29T09:22:52.834+08:002010-04-29T09:22:52.834+08:00I agree that Pickering would certainly claim inten...I agree that Pickering would certainly claim intending a permanent record but I think it would be difficult to make that claim convincingly when one is acting in a manner directly detrimental to it. In the case of the Prehistoric Times insert, I would expect that if there are libraries accessioning (is that a word?) Prehistoric Times then they would also be retaining inserts but I agree it'd be nice to have confirmation.<br /><br />Yes, it's hard to define any qualitative difference between Pickering's works and the privately published works of authors such as Girault and Rafinesque that have been accepted as valid by subsequent taxonomists. Essentially, we're having to judge whether the work is likely to remain available another fifty or more years down the track, and that can only be determined conclusively by time.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-91082712069527231752010-04-29T06:11:12.367+08:002010-04-29T06:11:12.367+08:00Thanks for the followup post. I can confirm Picke...Thanks for the followup post. I can confirm Pickering's diagnoses satisfy ICZN requirements. I should clarify the 1996 work that came with Prehistoric Times is quite different from any of the Archosauromorpha excerpts, though the taxa named in it will be featured in his book if it is ever published.<br /><br />It certainly is a tricky problem. For instance, even though the magazine supplement had a much higher distribution, do you think it was deposited in public records like the magazine itself was? Also, 8.1.1 seems to involve the author's intent, and Pickering certainly intends his material to be a permanent scientific record. How are Pickering's works different from Olshevsky's Mesozoic Meanderings (which named Valdoraptor, Becklespinax, etc. that everyone accepts as valid) besides having a lower distribution?Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-8957297373803113462010-04-28T20:37:40.536+08:002010-04-28T20:37:40.536+08:00OK, I was going to say something more serious, and...OK, I was going to say something more serious, and I'll admit that this is utterly frivolous, but the verification word required of me is "menerd" which I take to be a thinly veiled warning from the gods of the internet not to get involved in this discussion.Reprobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10650084661969561056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-72799144752005735802010-04-28T17:56:43.716+08:002010-04-28T17:56:43.716+08:00Lost descriptions that are not remembered are not ...Lost descriptions that are not remembered are not of much concern because of course no-one remembers that they were there in the first place. Where problems arise is when lost names are referenced in secondary sources (as apparently happened with a couple of the <i>Lansania</i> names).<br /><br />One possibility in such a situation that I suggested in one of my electronic publication posts is that, if the taxon has been redescribed, the name could be conserved with the redescription effectively acting as the original description but with priority retained from the original lost publication. Names that have not been redescribed would probably be best treated as nomina nuda.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-79967582378368792032010-04-28T17:10:39.752+08:002010-04-28T17:10:39.752+08:00Excellent post. To your final question, taxa names...Excellent post. To your final question, taxa names that are not remembered will of course disappear. And so much of the original works of alpha taxonomy are of poor quality and/or very rare. This is especially true of entomology.<br /><br />In Principles of Systematic Entomology (1928), Ferris suggests that even more important than the description of new species is the redescription and revision of previously described species and other taxa. Running around putting names on organisms does no good when the previous names are near useless.<br /><br />Overall, I agree with your post. Unless there is a public record of taxonomy where descriptions are put in the collective human memory, they are completely useless.<br /><br />~KaiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com