[Zoobank-list] original descriptions

[Richard Pyle]

Frank wrote:

> However, let's say there were three ant taxonomists left in the 
> world, and they don't like each other (very hypothetical), where
> would new ant species be published? Do you think, rejects are
> always objective or based on quality?

This is one of the reasons I'm uneasy about enforcing peer-reviewed full-fledged descriptions (in *any* form -- paper, electronic, or otherwise) as a mandatory component of nomenclatural availability.  In my view, all that should be required to establish an available scientific name in Zoology are:

1) The non-homonymous and otherwise semantically acceptible name/epithet (text-string) itself;

2) A cross-reference to an already registered name that represents the hierarchical parent of the new name (minimally required for names below the rank of Genus, but I would go further and require it of all registered names at all ranks);

3) An unambiguous indication of the Type; and

4) Objective rules for establishing priority.

Most of the Articles in the Code address one of these four things. All the stuff about Publication is primarily focused on item #4 above.

Ultimately, it's all about anchoring a unique text-string (name) to a primary type specimen (directly for species-group names; indirectly for genus- and family-group names), and determining which of two or more names has priority when a taxonomist believes that two or more primary type specimens are circumscribed within the same taxon concept at a given Linnean rank.

When I say "it's all about..." in the previous paragraph, the "it" refers to nomenclature only -- NOT the science of taxonomy.

Personally, I would love to have access to a publication venue as described by Doug, and I'm also quite comfortable with the current paradigm of publishing full descriptions in traditional journals as advocated by Frank.  My main point is that *neither* of these should be part of the minimum requirement for establishing the availability of, nor completing the registration of, a zoological name.  Actually, neither is currently required, for the most part. Indeed, except for Art. 9.8 and the word "durable" in Art. 8.1.3, the act of registering a new name in ZooBank would fulfill all of the basic requirements already set forth in the 4th Edition of the Code -- because the registration entry itself would contain all of the minimum elements of information that ICZN currently requires.  Even the words "numerous identical" of Art. 8.1.3 would be accomodated if, as I have strongly advocated, the ZooBank database exists on hundreds or thousands of mirrored and automatically synchronized servers around the world. From the perspective of nomenclatural availability, the entire publication process is a carry-over from an era when "publications" needed to be distinguished from non-publications, such as hand-written notes, specimen labels, and other single-copy documents. With the advent of a mandatory universal registration system, I don't see why such "publications" are necessary at all to simply make a name available.

Aloha,
Rich