tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2028565150475419281.post5920011706247831762..comments2024-01-23T15:18:52.111-05:00Comments on Trichopterology: Publication, Availability, and Nomina Nuda.Kaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15709111344826156855noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2028565150475419281.post-71842088188632567102014-09-17T07:44:42.516-04:002014-09-17T07:44:42.516-04:00Hi Kai - thanks for this! However, in retrospect I...Hi Kai - thanks for this! However, in retrospect I think I phrased the question slightly badly! In essence, what I wanted to ask is: is it true there was a much greater divergence of practice around this issue in the early 19th century, and is it also the case that the importance of not publishing nomine nuda was not so widely shared as it is now - to the extent that even quite competent observers sometimes named species in print without properly describing them? Your article does seem to imply practice was looser in early 19th century - if so, I'd be very interested to hear some examples of accomplished scientists pre 1850 who published nomine nuda. <br /><br />The reason why I'm investigating this may interest you. I'm working on a woman who in 1826 edits for publication the fieldnotes of a naturalist, and in some cases doesn't give full descriptions for some of the new species he identifies. Later 19th century (when science had arguably become more closed to women than it earlier was) seize on this and insist that as an editor she was scientifically incompetent and did a massive disservice to the naturalist. But my research is suggesting this is a bit of an over reaction - on the one hand I can demonstrate she was clearly much more scientifically competent than the later commentators assume; on the other, my sense is that on the couple of occasion where she does publish nomine nuda, this is perhaps more indicative of a greater variance of practice in this regard in the early 19th century... Does that seem plausible?! Any thoughts you had would be much appreciated!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09105790466351313579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2028565150475419281.post-9936702254792294942014-09-07T09:00:35.638-04:002014-09-07T09:00:35.638-04:00Carl,
Thanks for the comment! No, I don't thi...Carl,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment! No, I don't think the directive against nomen nuda comes only in the 1930s. Mind you, I'm not an expert on the history. Article 12--which explicitly states that new names must be accompanied by descriptions to be available--has been in the Code since it was called the "International Rules on Zoological Nomenclature" in 1905. I think what has happened, first in the 1930s, the 1960s, the 1990s, etc, is a narrowing of the aperture in terms of what can be considered available.<br /><br />Even 19th century works are required to have some sort of description (under Art. 12) or at least an indication, for a name to be available. In the 1920-30s, availability rules increased. Indications were no longer allowable, an explicit description was required. After the 1960s, new names could not be published conditionally. After 1999, new species required an explicit statement and fixation of a type specimen. <br /><br />If I had to guess for the historical reason behind Article 12 and the change to Article 13, I'd say it was that the publishing technology had finally caught up. Extremely short publications without full descriptions were no longer common, people were no longer describing species directly from older works, and the standards of publishing were overall higher. This was just after assembly line production became the norm.<br /><br />Thanks again!<br /><br />~KaiKaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15709111344826156855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2028565150475419281.post-40363074874309708252014-09-07T08:23:53.010-04:002014-09-07T08:23:53.010-04:00Very interesting post, Kai, and very useful for me...Very interesting post, Kai, and very useful for me since I'm currently researching some early 19th-century natural history texts! I have a question, though: does the strong directive against publishing nomine nuda only come in in the 1930s? Or at some earlier decade? As you suggest, it was clearly much more acceptable in the 19th century, especially in the earlier decades, for even quite reputable natural historians to name new species without giving full descriptions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09105790466351313579noreply@blogger.com