I do not see this case as the same as the botanical paper referred to. There is no suggestion that the name is preoccupied or is otherwise unavailable. I also do not see how the name can be considered to be 'unpublished'; I know of at least one valid bird name that was originally published in a local newspaper, and I recall several occasions on this and other lists when we have been asked to avoid providing an as yet unpublished name in an email for fear this might count as 'publication' before the actual paper came out.The Basilosaurus example is not the only one of a phylogenetically inappropriate name - there is no requirement as far as I am aware that a name be appropriate taxonomically. Just to give a few more examples: Meiolania is not a 'ripper' or monitor lizard but a turtle; Anomalocaris is not a shrimp; the living South American bird Sakesphorus canadensis is not from Canada.In any case, we are not just dealing with an inappropriate generic name but a binomial, Oculudentavis khaungraae. Even if the genus is inappropriate there is nothing wrong (to my knowledge) with the specific epithet, which should stand even if the genus is reassigned or the name rendered invalid for some reason.Has anyone asked the authors whether their retraction was meant to be a withdrawal of the name as opposed to their conclusions about the specimen? It would be far easier if they could simply clarify their intent. Unless they restrict the retraction to their conclusions and allow the name to stand, I agree that this is a matter for the Commission -- but I see no good reason for invalidating the name unless the specimen is identified as an absolute fake (which I don't think anyone is suggesting).
Ronald Orenstein
1825 Shady Creek Court
Mississauga, ON L5L 3W2
Canada
ronorenstein.blogspot.com
ronorensteinwriter.blogspot.com
On Thursday, July 23, 2020, 08:41:49 a.m. EDT, Thomas Richard Holtz <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:
Mike wrote:
>To retract a paper containing nomenclatural acts a Case should be submitted to the Commission to apply its plenary power to declare those acts and the paper unavailable.
I am fine with that. Thanks to M.S.Y. Lee for finding this (and Mike for posting it here.)!!
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 7:02 AM Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:
> As pointed out my Michael S. Lee (https://twitter.com/michael_s_y_lee/status/1286165596191694849), there is also this:
>
>
>
>
> Recently, a botanical paper describing a new species in the Nordic Journal of Botany, a Wiley journal, was retracted because the species turned out to be a synonym (Anonymous, 2014; Mattapha et al., 2013). While this particular case does not affect zoological nomenclature, the occurrence is of concern. Retracting a paper containing zoological nomenclatural acts would be ill-advised because the Code does not provide a mechanism to deal with a published paper that is supposed to no longer exist. As soon as it is published fulfilling all criteria for availability, a paper and the nomenclatural acts that it contains are available in perpetuity (unless later deemed to be unavailable by the ICZNâs plenary power). To retract a paper containing nomenclatural acts a Case should be submitted to the Commission to apply its plenary power to declare those acts and the paper unavailable. However, there is no reason for retracting a publication on the grounds of a simple synonymy. This is an inappropriate over-reaction that causes confusion.
> From Krell (2015:24). This is not an official position of the ICZN, but it was published in the BZN, which is the official journal of the ICZN so it has at least some standing as a position that was considered reasonable, and which might reasonably be expected to be part of the corpus of opinion that guides any future rulings. The key observation here is "the Code does notp rovide a mechanism to deal with a published paper that is supposed to no longer exist. As soon as it is published fulfilling all criteria for availability, a paper and the nomenclatural acts that it contains are available in perpetuity (unless later deemed to be unavailable by the ICZNâs plenary power)."
>
> REFERENCE
> Krell, Frank-Thorsten. 2015. A mixed bag: when are early online publications available for nomenclatural
> purposes? Bulletin of zoological nomenclature 72(1):19-32. doi:10.21805/bzn.v72i1.a14 â
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 10:40, Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> To be fair, the ICZN is just a bunch of folks and the Code just some words on paper which we can ignore if we want to.
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, but the zoological community chooses to give them power so that we have an objective nomenclature. We don't have to extend the same power to Springer Nature.
>>
>> BAM!
>>
>> That, to me, is the killer argument that settles the nomenclatural issue. It comes down to who we want to have authority over zoological names: a committee nominated, supported and made up of members of the zoological community? Or a for-profit corporation? It's no contest.
>>
>> -- Mike.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 08:00, Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregory Paul wrote-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Although this solution makes certain sense, what happens if the holotype is given a new genus-species tag -- presumably one more appropriate to its real phylogeny -- in a new and more correct paper? And although that may not happen in this case, it could in another.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then we, the vert paleo community, say "that's an objective junior synonym of Oculudentavis, nice try attempting to subvert the ICZN, but that's not a valid move based on the rules." Just like we do for Owen trying to rename Basilosaurus Zeuglodon after he recognized it was a mammal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas Holtz wrote-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> To be fair, the ICZN is just a bunch of folks and the Code just some words on paper which we can ignore if we want to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but the zoological community chooses to give them power so that we have an objective nomenclature. We don't have to extend the same power to Springer Nature.
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul P. wrote-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There's no retracting unless the Mar 11 issue of Nature hasn't been printed yet...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It was printed and Oculudentavis is even the cover story and photograph.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And what exactly does "a new unpublished specimen casts doubts upon our hypothesis regarding the phylogenetic position of HPG-15-3" mean..?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's another pathetic part of this story is that the authors couldn't even just be forthright and say "Turns out Li et al. were correct and new material shows this is a lepidosaur", instead being cryptic like an SVP abstract.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> â
>>>
>>> Mickey Mortimer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.Email: tholtz@umd.edu Phone: 301-405-4084Principal Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Office: Geology 4106, 8000 Regents Dr., College Park MD 20742
Dept. of Geology, University of Marylandhttp://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
Phone: 301-405-6965Fax: 301-314-9661 Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Office: Centreville 1216, 4243 Valley Dr., College Park MD 20742http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgcFax: 301-314-9843Mailing Address: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. Department of Geology Building 237, Room 1117
8000 Regents Drive University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-4211 USA
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: tholtz@umd.edu Phone: 301-405-4084
Principal Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Office: Geology 4106, 8000 Regents Dr., College Park MD 20742
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
Phone: 301-405-6965
Fax: 301-314-9661
Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Office: Centreville 1216, 4243 Valley Dr., College Park MD 20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843
Mailing Address: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology
Building 237, Room 1117
8000 Regents Drive
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-4211 USA