[Taxacom] New lizard species

Mon Jun 14 13:34:56 CDT 2010

Hi all,

Believe it or not, despite going through this whole thread (quickly 
and superficially), it was almost at the end of it that it jumped out 
at me that the lengthy discussion didn't seem to focus on the fact 
that the wording says "organisms" rather than "organism".  I am 
assuming the stated wording is correct - haven't checked the code 
directly (excuse - I have never used the ICZN but this gives me a 
detached view.)  Maybe going through so many inputs just deadened my 
inhibitions to learning as well as expressing thoughts!

So I'd say the comment was partly serious and partly not.  Let me try 
to separate the two aspects.  I was and am quite serious in thinking 
that as written, without any intervening usages, it would seem to say 
that an attribute should be shared by at least two organisms before 
it is called a "character" used in classification.  Why whoever wrote 
it didn't just say "any attribute of one or more organisms used for 
recognizing, differentiating, or classifying" I don't know, but 
apparently (s)he didn't.  I am guessing that the writer probably 
wasn't focused on the situation when only one type specimen could be 
the basis for a classification when writing it.

In Botany one can make petitions for conservation of names based on 
common usage that may conflict with the principle of priority, but 
the formal process still needs to be done, tedious though it may be.

So in a somewhat parallel way, I might suggest that a petition to 
amend the Zoological Code to allow the common practice of using 
characters of single organisms, as well as groups of organisms, in 
"recognizing, differentiating, or classifying", be presented at the 
next appropriate ICZN event.  From all I have read in this thread, I 
wouldn't expect much objection to this or at least an official 
recommendation to this effect.

I admit I went over the top a bit in my response - deposing species 
now known from only single (type) specimens could technically occur 
from a literal, out-of-context reading of the "character" definition, 
but synonymy -- maybe but not necessarily if the types are not 
similar enough to anything else!

As to the Commisioner bit, I said "you name it" for what what I was 
commissioner of but no one rose to the challenge, so I will do it: 
Commisioner (or committer) of Syn (abbreviation for 
"Synonymies").  Not serious.  I am not really a commissioner.  But I 
did see an earlier post that indicated we had four or five existing 
or past commissioners.  That was news to me and I still don't know 
what any of them are Commisioners of or who they 
are.  Seriously.  Sorry, but still curious.

And Robin, I promise these are my "last words" on this thread.  Now 
anyone else with "lastworditis" can have your last words.

Steve

At 08:11 PM 6/11/2010, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>I disagree!!! [not really, I just wanted the last word! :)]
>
>I assume Steve Manning's comment wasn't intended to be serious???
>
>Stephen
>
>
>From: Robin Leech <releech at telusplanet.net>
>To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Richard Pyle 
><deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Steve 
>Manning <sdmanning at asub.edu>
>Sent: Sat, 12 June, 2010 1:08:36 PM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species
>
>This thread just aint gonna die, will it?
>I think the disease is lastworditis.
>Robin
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Manning" <<mailto:sdmanning at asub.edu>sdmanning at asub.edu>
>To: "Stephen Thorpe" 
><<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; 
>"Richard Pyle"
><<mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>; 
><<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 5:41 PM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species
>
>
> > 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.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 
> <<mailto:deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> >>To: Stephen Thorpe 
> <<mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>;
> >><mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>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
> >><mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>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/>http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >>
> >>Or (2) a Google search specified
> >>as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > <mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>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/>http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> >
>
>
>
>