ICBN requirements

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

>
> The difficulty with requiring a key to the 10 most similar taxa that I
> have experienced is that in large groups with poorly developed taxonomy
> (e.g., Amanita section Vaginatae (Fungi)), only a very few people in
> the world may have a half-way clear view of what the 10 most similar taxa
> are.

This problem is hardly limited to fungi or algae. I could
list several poorly-understood groups of vascular plants.
Many groups have extensive introgression, hybridization,
and parallel evolution ocurring, making the seemingly innocent
phrase "10 most similar taxa" insanely difficult. Whose
criteria are you going to use?
   The task in describing a new taxon is and should remain
distinguishing between the new taxon and ALL existing taxa.
Many existing Latin diagnoses distinguish between the new
taxon and one existing taxon. I agree that this is poor,
even though it does meet the ICBN requirements. But writing
a key distingiushing between the new taxon and ten
existing taxa is no better. Further investigation could
show the new taxon to be identical to some eleventh taxon
I had not considered.
   Let me repeat my statement from yesterday that such a
proposal might make a good recommendation, but should not
be a requirement. There are too many cases in which
it would be inappropriate. A description of a new species
should emphasize the new taxon and list the ways in which it
differs from ALL existing species, not just one, and not
just ten.

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
who believes very strongly that one should
not have opinions.