No, Doug, the Code is not what you want it to say, it is what it actually says. To say that the Code of Ethics requires or even suggests what you say is simply wrong -- it says nothing of the type. Your entire message could have been better to simply say "as in all things dealing with nomenclature and types, be sure to carefully read and follow the Code." It is rather insulting to this community to think we need a pedantic lecture to simply do what is obvious. Then, to start trying to say the Commission believes the Code and the Appendices should be read broadly to indicate what YOU WISH it said, not what it actually says, is to invite chaos.
Your statement " if we ask that people contact authors about
replacing their names (which we do), then we should also
ask that people contact authors about replacing their
types" shows that you are talking about extending what is
in the Code to what you THINK SHOULD be in the Code, but it is not
there. If you can make such leaps here, then anyone can make the
same kind of leaps on other provisions. This is not permissible.
Further, you say "Things like this, that the Code does not
explicitly say or require, ARE part of the document" is simply not
true. If it does not explicitly say it, it is not part of the
document. How a Commissioner can be confused about this is
astounding! From the Introduction: "Problems in nomenclature are
decided by applying the Code directly... "
[log in to unmask]">On 9/13/18 9:34 AM, Michael A. Ivie wrote:
[log in to unmask]"> The writers should perhaps have thought about this more before sending it out.The phrase "in keeping with" was used explicitly rather than "as specified in". We are fully aware that there is nothing in Appendix A regarding neotypes, but the point is that our ethical philosophy needs to be consistent; if we ask that people contact authors about replacing their names (which we do), then we should also ask that people contact authors about replacing their types. Things like this, that the Code does not explicitly say or require, ARE part of the document, and that's why the heading says "required and recommended" rather than just "required".
3. B. Indicates the writers are unfamiliar with the documents or are writing from memory rather than from direct consultation of the text. The statement "The second step, in keeping with Appendix A of the Code (Code of Ethics), is to contact the original describer(s) of a species beforeattempting to designate a neotype, and to collaborate with them or to get their feedback" is simply fiction. The recommentations in the Appendix deal with proposing NEW NAMES, Neotypes are not mentioned at all. A Neotype does not, as I am sure they know, establish a new name.
However, I fail to see how you could fully establish that a type is actually lost without asking a living author if by chance they have it. This would be the required step involving a valid Neotype designation under the Code itself.
-- Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's) http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
-- __________________________________________________ Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S. NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers US Post Office Address: Montana Entomology Collection Marsh Labs, Room 50 PO Box 173145 Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717 USA UPS, FedEx, DHL Address: Montana Entomology Collection Marsh Labs, Room 50 1911 West Lincoln Street Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59718 USA (406) 994-4610 (voice) (406) 994-6029 (FAX) [log in to unmask]