[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Anthony Gill]

I fail to see how a node-based definition includes characters. If there are
characters that support the Bayesian relationships, these are the ones that
must be identified in the diagnosis. As it stands, I do not think the
diagnosis satisfies the Code.

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>wrote:

> unfortunately, I must disagree that the new species descriptions fail to
> comply to Article 13.1.1.
>
> Article 13.1.1 "be accompanied by a description or definition that states
> in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon"
>
> 'Diagnosis. This species includes all populations that cluster with those
> from the southern portion of the Congolian rainforest included in this study
> (southern Cameroon, Gabon and Congo), with strong support in the Bayesian
> species delimitation model'
>
> Francisco say: It would be equivalent to a statement "colour differs from
> species B", without announcing how it would differ. It makes no difference
> if a computer tells me under 99.999 % likelyhood that the colour differs
>
> Article 13.1.1 does not explicitly rule out relative characters, so you
> could say something like "Diagnosis: 5mm larger on average than the other
> species", and that would be OK. The article also only explicitly requires
> you to specify the characters, and not how they differ. So you could just
> say "differs in size, shape, colour, texture, ..."
>
> If the article is intended to be more restrictive, then this needs to be
> made explicit ...
>
> Stephen
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: fwelter at gwdg.de; Heath Blackmon <coleoguy at gmail.com>
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Sun, 6 June, 2010 5:53:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species
>
> > couldn't the fact that when analyzed these populations sort in
> > a certain way be considered a trait and thus satisfy the
> > requirements of 13.1.1?
>
> No it cannot, this is the point. It would be equivalent to a
> statement "colour differs from species B", without announcing how it
> would differ. It makes no difference if a computer tells me under
> 99.999 % likelyhood that the colour differs.
>
> Francisco
>
>
> University of Goettingen, Germany
> www.animalbase.org
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>



-- 
Dr Anthony C. Gill
Assistant Director for Collections
International Institute for Species Exploration
School of Life Sciences
PO Box 874501
Arizona State University
Tempe
AZ 85287-4501
USA.

Phone: (480) 965-8620
Fax: (480) 965-6899
E-mail: gill.anthony at gmail.com
http://sols.asu.edu/faculty/agill.htm
http://species.asu.edu/