Sherborn: Fautin & Alonso-Zarazaga - LANs: Lists of Available Names – a new generation for stable taxonomic names in zoology
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Sherborn: Fautin & Alonso-Zarazaga - LANs: Lists of Available Names – a new generation for stable taxonomic names in zoology

on

  • 537 views

Article 79 of the ICZN Code, which appeared first in the Fourth Edition, outlines a procedure for adding large numbers of names to the List of Available Names simultaneously, as a Part of the List. ...

Article 79 of the ICZN Code, which appeared first in the Fourth Edition, outlines a procedure for adding large numbers of names to the List of Available Names simultaneously, as a Part of the List. This feature has gained importance with the development of Zoobank, because the LAN can be an important adjunct to or component of Zoobank. Article 79 describes a deliberative process, detailing steps for submission and for consideration by the public and Commission, and their chronology: submission must be by “an international body of zoologists,” and the proposed Part must be available for “comments by zoologists” for 12 months, followed by another 12-month period for comments on the proposed Part as revised in light of comments received. However, Article 79 it is mute about the contents of the submission. It is clear that adding a Part to the List will prevent long-forgotten names from displacing accepted ones – thus, for taxa on the List under the provisions of Article 79, nomenclatural archeology will not be worthwhile. Beyond that, Commissioners who participated in writing the Fourth Edition are divided about the intent of Article 79: some aver it is intended to document every available name within the scope of the Part, others it is to pare the inventory of names within the scope of the Part. The comprehensiveness of the names in the Part is critical because, according to Article 79.4.3, “No unlisted name within the scope (taxonomic field, ranks, and time period covered) of an adopted Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology has any status in zoological nomenclature despite any previous availability” (names may subsequently be added only “in exceptional circumstances,” according to Article 79.6). Under the first interpretation, the Part functions as a strictly nomenclatural archive. Under the second interpretation, the Part pares away nomina dubia, so Parts of the List resulting from actions under Article 79 are like the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names that took effect on 1 January 1980 – taxonomically recognizable as well as nomenclaturally available. It is critical that a consistent basis for implementing Article 79 be adopted; it is unrealistic to expect unanimity, given the diversity of opinion among those who helped craft Article 79.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
537
Views on SlideShare
537
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Sherborn: Fautin & Alonso-Zarazaga - LANs: Lists of Available Names – a new generation for stable taxonomic names in zoology Sherborn: Fautin & Alonso-Zarazaga - LANs: Lists of Available Names – a new generation for stable taxonomic names in zoology Presentation Transcript

    • LANs: Lists of Available Names a new generation for stable taxonomic names in zoology Anchoring Biodiversity Information: From Sherborn to the 21st century and beyond Friday October 28th 2011
    • by Daphne Gail Fautin University of Kansas and International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
    • and Miguel Alonso-Zarazaga Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales and International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
    • Article 79 entitled “ List of Available Names in Zoology,” outlines a procedure for assembling a List of Available Names by simultaneously adding large numbers of names to the List as a Part of the List
    • Article 79 appeared first in the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (which took effect from 1 January 2000) In previous editions, it dealt with the Plenary Power (Edition 3; “Powers” in Edition 2) of the Commission. In Edition 2 it was half a page long with one section; by Edition 3 it was two pages long with three sections.
    • Daphne Gail Fautin Chair, an ad hoc committee Miguel Alonso-Zarazaga Chair, a standing committee To announce the procedure our committees propose be adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for implementing Article 79. ICZN Article 80.5 . Interpretation of Opinions. An Opinion applies only to the particular case before the Commission and is to be rigidly construed; no conclusions other than those expressly specified are to be drawn from it.
    • Article 79 This feature has gained importance with the development of Zoobank, because the LAN can be an important adjunct to or become a component of Zoobank. Potentially a source of many names for Zoobank
    • Article 79 does not involve To which names are added in small numbers (by contrast with the LAN). According to Article 80.8, the LAN takes precedence over the Official List in cases of contradiction.
    • Article 79
      • outlines a procedure that includes who may propose and the role of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (referred to as the Commission)
      An international body of zoologists… in consultation with the Commission may propose that the Commission adopt for a major taxonomic field (or related fields) a Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology . The Commission will consider the proposal and may adopt the Part subject to the proposing body and the Commission meeting the requirements of this Article.
    • Article 79
      • outlines the form of the proposal (Article 79.1)
      79.1.1. specify the scope of the proposal, such as the taxonomic field, ranks, and time period covered … ; 79.1.2. for each name to be listed, give the bibliographic reference to the work in which it is established, its authorship, its date of publication and its status (including its precedence if this is different from its priority); 79.1.3. for each name to be listed, give details of the name-bearing type of the nominal taxon it denotes; in the case of a species-group name, if the details of how the type specimen(s) may be recognized are not known, state whether the name is based on a holotype, syntypes, lectotype or neotype and the place(s) of deposition (if any) recorded in the type fixation (but no lectotype or neotype designation can be made for the purposes of listing alone …
    • Article 79
      • outlines what the Commission is to do when a candidate Part is submitted (Article 79.2.1-79.2.2.2)
      79.2.1. Upon being advised by an international body of zoologists that it intends to propose a Part of the List , the Commission shall appoint by its Council an ad hoc committee [Constitution Art. 10] to consult with the proposers. 79.2.2. Upon receipt of a proposal the Commission shall 79.2.2.1. publish a notice of the proposal in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature giving details of the proposing body, proposed scope of the Part and a source from which copies (on paper or otherwise) of the proposed Part may be obtained by zoologists, and inviting comments from zoologists during the following twelve months; 79.2.2.2. submit the notice for publication in journals publishing taxonomic work in the taxonomic field covered by the proposal;
    • Article 79
      • outlines what the Commission is to do with the candidate Part (Article 79.2.2.3-79.2.2.6)
      79.2.2.3. refer the proposal to its ad hoc committee for it to receive comments, consult with the proposers and others and, not less than two years from the date of publication of the notice referred to in Article 79.2.2.1, consider either a revised proposal or a recommendation that the proposal be abandoned; 79.2.2.4. ensure that the revised proposal does not contain any name established less than five years before the submission of the initial proposal; 79.2.2.5. following receipt of the revised proposal from its ad hoc committee, publish notice of it and invite comments on the revised proposal in the same manner as for the initial proposal [Arts. 79.2.2.1, 79.2.2.2]; 79.2.2.6. take into account comments received (if any) and comments of the proposers thereon, and vote to adopt the Part proposed or to abandon the proposal, under procedures prescribed in the Constitution [Art. 12] and the Bylaws of the Commission for voting under its plenary power.
    • Article 79
      • has a lot to say about timing
      Once a candidate Part has been submitted to the Commission, notice is published that it is open for comment And the community has 12 months to comment on it
    • Article 79
      • has a lot to say about timing
      Once a candidate Part has been submitted to the Commission, notice is published that it is open for comment And the community has 12 months to comment on it After which, at least two years after publication of the notice, the Commission must vote To consider a revised proposal To recommend the proposal be abandoned OR
    • Article 79
      • has a lot more to say about timing
      Once a REVISED candidate Part has been submitted to the Commission, notice is published that it is open for comment And the community has another 12 month comment period OR To adopt the Part To abandon the proposal After at least two more years after publication of that notice, the Commission must vote
    • Article 79 describes a type of application to the Commission
      • outlines who may submit a proposal
      • outlines the form of the proposal
      • outlines the role of the Commission in responding to a proposal and comments concerning it
      • outlines timing for consideration of a proposal
    • Article 79 describes a type of application to the Commission
      • outlines who may submit a proposal
      • outlines the form of the proposal
      • outlines the role of the Commission in responding to a proposal and comments concerning it
      • outlines timing for consideration of a proposal
      • is mute concerning the content of the submission
      • 79.4.3. No unlisted name within the scope (taxonomic field, ranks, and time period covered) of an adopted Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology has any status in zoological nomenclature despite any previous availability.
      This will prevent long-forgotten names from displacing accepted ones (“nomenclatural archeology”) -- but was that the sole reason for developing the elaborate procedure outlined in Article 79?
    • TWO POSSIBILITIES STRICTLY NOMENCLATURAL TAXONOMIC COMPONENT to document every available name within the scope of the Part to pare the inventory of names within the scope of the Part
    • Charles Michener is quoted by S. J. Gould in Bully for Brontosaurus “ In other sciences the work of incompetents is merely ignored; in taxonomy, because of priority, it is preserved.”
    • What did the framers of Article 79 envision? Risk a Type I error: keep a name that we will never understand or relate to something real Risk a Type II error: discard a name that refers to something real that we will have to describe again
    • But the name is so unclear that experts and two years of public scrutiny cannot associate it with an entity, much work will be required to circumscribe it An entity referred to by a discarded name will have to be described again once rediscovered keep all names in case one might refer to an animal we will someday find or understand IF WE discard a name that might refer to something real IF WE
      • We interpret the lengthy and exhaustive (not to say exhausting!) procedure outlined in Article 79 as a mechanism to
      • pare away dubious names (like the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names that took effect on 1 January 1980 – taxonomically recognizable as well as nomenclaturally available), while
      • ensuring a candidate Part of the LAN is thoroughly vetted.
      • Creates a definitive nomenclatural inventory (a new zero point) for a portion of the taxonomic spectrum
    • Implementation of Article 79
      • The candidate PART submitted should include all names the responsible group wants to become a Part of the LAN
      • The responsible group should include an inventory of nomenclaturally available names (or even unavailable names in current use) that it does not want to become part of the LAN
    • Implementation of Article 79
      • The candidate PART submitted should include all names the responsible group wants to become a Part of the LAN
      • If the Part is accepted for the LAN after the mandatory period of consideration (at least four years), any name not on the LAN within the parameters of the Part loses nomenclatural standing
    • Implementation of Article 79
      • This procedure (with examples) is documented in a manual to be put before the Commission this year. Once it is approved, a body wishing to make an application under Article 79 should follow the procedures it outlines. (A copy can be obtained from the ICZN website.)
    •  
    •