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... " 

Mike



On 9/13/2018 11:48 AM, Doug Yanega wrote:
[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.

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.
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".

Peace,
-- 
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]