"From your quotation of their publication, one can certainly argue that Wells and Wellington "purported to differentiate" (which is what the ICZN requires) their taxon, even if they may not succeed in doing so. They provided both some "word characters" and a "bibiographic reference," thus they appear to satisfy the requirements of Article 13a (i and ii) of the ICZN's Code. In my opinion, the name they erected appears to meet the rules of the ICZN for availability and are thus "available" sensu the ICZN."

There are no "word characters" defining the species in that quote the description fails to meet Art 13a(i) of the ICZN. However, I did misread it earlier and you would need to check Storr 1981 to see if Storr described characters that Storr states are diagnostic of the taxon. (He does not have to say its a species just that the population has diagnosible characteristics and defines them.)

So this will depend on the Storr paper as referenced. So you need the paper and two examine the pages mentioned. If they contain a diagnosis that "purports" to differentiate the taxon then its valid. Purports basically means a written claim that the characters work, they don't have to hold up at all. If Storr did not diagnose the taxon or this reference is to figures (which are disallowed under the Code) then the description fails to meet Art 13a(ii) of the code and is hence Nomen Nudem.

When someone cites another paper you need to check what the other person said as its there words that are now relied on. Supplying a reference does not automatically meet the code.

I do not have the Storr paper Ray, sorry or I would look.

Cheers, Scott

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]