Taxonomy
Macrostomorpha (5)
Macrostomorpha (2)
Haplopharyngida (1)
Macrostomida (3)
Content
Statistics
- Pages: 2557
- Users: 23
- Total Page Views: 343273
User login
About this site
This site is moderated by lukas.scharer on behalf of the contributors who retain copyright.
Content can be used in accordance with a CC Licence.
Some thoughts on the 'Monograph' of Anno Faubel
About a year ago Anno Faubel of the University of Hamburg, Germany, posted a PDF document on his website, entitled 'Monograph of the Macrostomida and Haplopharyngida (Plathelminthes: Rhabditophora)'. This document offers the most comprehensive literature collection on the Macrostomorpha since Ferguson's monograph in 1954. Moreover, it gives a detailed introduction to the morphology and ecology of these animals, and a list of the described species. It is thus a highly useful resource for anyone interested in the Macrostomorpha.
However, given its current state (undated, unpublished, and most importantly, not peer reviewed), the document in my view can not be considered a taxonomical monograph of the Macrostomorpha, despite the extensive taxonomical additions and revisions that it proposes (one new family, nine new genera, and generic replacement of numerous previously named species). The fact that Dr. Faubel has in the meantime retired, makes it difficult to deal with this document, as this probably reduces the probability that there will be a properly published version.
My suggestion therefore is that we should benefit from this document to learn about the Macrostomorpha in general, and about the relevant literature in particular, but that we should ignore all the proposed taxonomical additions and revisions contained in it, until they are published in an acceptable form in the primary taxonomical literature.
I would greatly appreciate some feedback from the flatworm community on this issue.
Cheers,
Lukas
- lukas.scharer's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1204 reads
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
ICZN relaxes code to encompass online-only publications
Hi all,
In the context of the discussion about Faubel's 'Monograph' I would like to point your attention to the fact that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) has recently relaxed its code to encompass publication in online-only publications (for more details see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/489178a.html).
I am not sure what this means for this document, though, because as far as I am aware, it currently is not available in any online repository (although I have recently found a copy of Dr. Faubel's original website at http://www.iwane-j.ed.jp/af/, but I am not sure this is endorsed by Dr. Faubel), and as far as I know the taxonomical changes contained in the 'Monograph' have not been registered with Zoobank, as required by the code.
Best wishes, Lukas
Macrostomorpha monograph
I agree with Julian's comment. But actually I think this discussion is
not really necessary. As far as I interprete the ICZN correctly (see
art.8, especially art. 8.6, and art.9, especially art. 9.8), the names
are not available, and the nomenclatural acts are not valid. Therefore,
at least I think, the work is very helpful tool in macrostomid
research, but as far as it goes for the nomenclatural acts and the new
names, it is, according to the Code, non-existing.
T. Artois, Hasselt University
Faubel
Hi Lukas,
I've looked at the work in short and first of all I have to say that this is really astonishing and to my view beautiful or to put it more common: a shit load of work. I think it would be a shame if something like this is not going to be published. I hope that in the near future there might be a student who could consider bringing this work into a published form (in a collaboration between you and Dr. Faubel) as his/her thesis project, who knows maybe things come together naturally.
As to the official thing: the code states clearly in chapter 3:
8.6. Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself.
To my knowledge Dr. Faubel did not do this, so his work is not valid anyway but maybe I have not seen this. If there is any uncertainty you can get into contact with:
All correspondence with ICZN dealing with nomenclatural issues, including applications and comments, should be directed to:
Executive Secretary and BZN Editor-in-Chief Dr Ellinor Michel, at:
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London
SW7 5BD
UK
tel.: +44(0)20 7942 5653
e-mail: iczn-em@nhm.ac.uk
they were very helpful to me regarding the writing concerning Simsagittifera or Symsagittifera.
Best regards,
Johnny
Macrostomorpha monograph
I don't really see any drawbacks to the approach that you propose. The literature review certainly is worth of having at hand.
I agree with you that the taxonomic proposals have no formal standing--they are, as far as I can discern, the higher-level equivalent of nomina nudae (or whatever the appropriate plural is)--having no standing until formally published.
As far as giving credit where credit is due for ideas, should the taxonomic proposals prove interesting, valuable, or worthless, there is now a fixed site where this document resides that can be cited like any other electronic source.
JSIII, Winthrop University