[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Steve Manning]

Aha!  If a character is an attribute of "organisms" (plural) what 
this must mean is that one organism isn't enough!  For all animals 
known only from a single "type specimen" rather than "specimens" you 
had better find another one quickly and designate it as the "co-type" 
or the species will be deposed ("synonymized") 
forthwith!  Populations may be closer to correct!

By edict,
Another Steve,
Commissioner of --- (you name it)

At 08:31 PM 6/8/2010, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>I agree that is the issue (at least the "small picture" issue)
>
>Yet again:
>
>ICZN glossary:
>character, n.
>Any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or 
>classifying taxa
>
>to understand my point, it might help to read (or at least glance at):
>
>http://www.jstor.org/stable/2671956
>http://www.springerlink.com/content/p306x3k440278g55/
>etc.
>
>when you say
>  >attribute of organisms (Code Glossary)<
>you evidently mean intrinsic attribute of organisms, whereas the 
>posted diagnosis makes use of extrinsic attributes of organisms 
>(i.e., attributes of their populations)
>
>however the Code reads "ANY attribute of organisms ...', which I 
>interpret as unrestricted intrinsic or extrinsic
>
>what the Code says and what it intended to say may be two different 
>things, but if so, then it is the fault of the Code, not the authors 
>of taxa, if they follow what it actually said rather than what was intended ...
>
>Stephen
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Sent: Wed, 9 June, 2010 1:12:40 PM
>Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New lizard species
>
>
>Testing out my repaired email connection -- so if this doesn't go, so much
>the better....
>
> > By my count, four active ICZN Commissioners, and one former ICZN
>Commissioner
> > (including two former presidents of ICZN) have all weighed in on this
>thread.
> > They have been unanimous in their assesment that the diagnosis, at least
>as
> > presented to Taxacom, fails to comply with Article 13.1.1 of the ICZN Code
> >
> > truth by consensus, eh?
>
>Truth?  Goodness no! But a reasonably good indication of an appropriate
>interpretation of the Code.
>
> > the ICZN has no mandate whatsoever to place any restrictions on what
> > is or is not an allowable taxonomic character or taxonomic methodology,
> > it can only regulate NAMES for taxa, by prescribing FORMATS (not CONTENT)
> > that taxonomists must follow
> >
> > if you don't understand that, then you should not, IMHO, be a commissioner
>...
>
>Hmmmm....not sure where that one came from.  The Commissioners of which I
>spoke were specifically talking about the availability of the name under
>Art. 13.1.1.  The issue is not whether something is, or is not an allowable
>taxonomic character.  The issue is about whether the character is an
>attribute of organisms (Code Glossary), or an attribute of populations
>(posted Diagnosis).
>
>Aloha,
>Rich
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either 
>of these methods:
>
>(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Or (2) a Google search specified 
>as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here