Hi Michael,
The Nonato thesis is still unpublished, as it wasn't freely obtainable in 1981 when created. It's probably a good thing it is somewhat more available now, but an online pdf copy of the original doesn't make a publication. We probably don't want to go there, but if someone republished it in 2016 in a code-approved way then it would be a new publication. Nonato's 1981 names are not nomina nuda, but when they appeared in published works those who used them created nomina nuda, except if by chance or intent they included enough description to make them available names. Each usage would need to be looked at. New names have to be intentional if published after 1999 - you can't do it accidentally any more.
A name that was published as a nomen nudum can be used later by anyone at all as if the nomen nudum didn't exist. It has the authorship and date (and concept) only of the new publication. Very simple. Explained in the Code Glossary.
I've just come across a McIntosh self-re-used nomen nudum, the sigalionid Leanira laevis McIntosh, 1874 which he used again for something else in 1885. It's not quite a clear-cut nomen nudum, but Marian Pettibone dealt with it as if it was, and it would be messy for anyone to challenge now what she decided to do. Best left alone.
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Reuscher, Michael
Sent: Thursday, 22 October 2015 5:38 a.m.
To: annelida from net.bio.net <annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu>
Subject: [Annelida] Re: A nomen nudum is ...
Hi Geoff and all,
what happens if a thesis that contains species descriptions is scanned and uploaded as a pdf into an online repository? Would the process of making them publicly available in an online database make these species valid (possibly decades after their descriptions)?
I have a specific example: famous Brazilian polychaetologist Edmundo Ferraz Nonato described a new species, Amphicteis latibranchiata, in his 1981 thesis, but never published the description in a peer-reviewed paper. According to your clarification, this means the species is not a nomen nudum, but basically non-existent in the nomenclature. His thesis is now available in an online repository of the University of Sao Paulo. Would that qualify as being published and make the species valid? The situation gets even more complicated as this online repository is password protected, and its content is not publicly available. I guess, my question is: what exactly does qualify as "published" in the age of digital files and online databases?
Secondly, if author ABC produces a nomen nudum in 1850 and that "nude species" is later described by taxonomist XYZ in 1900, what is the correct citation for this species? I always thought it would be Genus species ABC 1850 in XYZ 1900. According to you, it would only be Genus species XYZ 1900 (without giving credit to the author who named the species)? What if the same author produces a nomen nudum and provides an adequate description of the species at a later time. Let's say (hypothetically) McIntosh published a nomen nudum in 1885 and provided the description in 1900, would the citation be Genus species McIntosh 1885, or 1900, or even 1885 in 1900?
thank you,
Michael
________________________________
Michael Reuscher, Ph.D.
Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies
Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi
6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5869
Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5869
U.S.A.
________________________________________
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu <annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu> on behalf of Geoff Read <Geoffrey.Read from niwa.co.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:09 AM
To: annelida from net.bio.net
Subject: [Annelida] A nomen nudum is ...
Dear all,
Ignore if this seems very basic for you, but mistakes are being made out there. If you are uncertain about the terminology please be careful with using 'nomen nudum' for species names. I've seen it appear in recent abstracts, and used multiple times in a checklist, when the designation was not correct. It's simply a name published 'naked' without the basic details required by the Code that make a name usable as a label in taxonomy. If we apply it wrongly the original author is entitled to feel somewhat annoyed (fortunately mostly these authors will no longer be with us).
A nomen nudum is a PUBLISHED NAME that lacks a description or indication of what the taxon is. We can do nothing further with it. Usually it gets published by accident or carelessness. By definition unpublished names CANNOT be nomina nuda, and the names of described published taxa CANNOT be nomina nuda.
If a work is unpublished, such as many old non-European theses are unpublished, the names of taxa described in the thesis are NOT nomina nuda, they are simply unpublished and don't enter nomenclature AT ALL, unless published subsequently (which may well happen), whereupon the later name publisher would be the name's new author.
If a description is inadequate by today's standard and the type is missing, the taxon name is NOT a nomen nudum, but it might be regarded as a nomen dubium in the opinion of a particular author. A nomen dubium is very different and is a subjective categorisation in taxonomy without any particular significance for nomenclature.
To end with an example. The great McIntosh wrote long rambling descriptions that might be quite useless - those 'fully clothed' names are NOT nomina nuda of course, whereas he also slipped stark-naked into his publications mentions of names that he was going to describe later - YEESS, those were his nomina nuda. It's easy.
Thank you,
Geoff
