[CPN] Proposed revisions of Article 11--CALL FOR A VOTE

• Previous message: [CPN] Results of vote on Article 11 revisions
• Next message: [CPN] CPN Digest, Vol 17, Issue 8
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> When faced with the situation David describes, many (perhaps most) 
> systematists who wanted to name a clade with the new specimen as a 
> specifier would either assign it to the previously named species or 
> name a new species with that specimen as a type.  In either case, the 
> type would be used as a specifier.  If the researcher thinks the 
> specimen does not belong to any previously described species but there 
> is some reason not to describe a new species based on it, then this is 
> one of the situations where it would be acceptable to use a non-type as 
> a specifier.  In other words, the rule is working appropriately in this 
> situation. 
So it's up to the author of the clade name, and their decision can't be challenged later on the grounds that the specifier is deemed (by the challenger) to belong to a named species?

If so, that's fine, but it should be spelled out in a note.

• Previous message: [CPN] Results of vote on Article 11 revisions
• Next message: [CPN] CPN Digest, Vol 17, Issue 8
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]