[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Stephen Thorpe]

Once again:

13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or

character, n. 
Any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa (ICZN Glossary)
 
any competent English speaker must surely admit that the proposal of the new gecko species does comply with the word (if not the "spirit") of 13.1.1.
 
this is not the first instance that I have encountered of people (including commissioners) trying to twist the meaning of the Code in order to make things turn out the way they want them to turn out...
 
Unless you take the word of the Code at face value, you introduce another big element of subjectivity and potential disagreement into things, which is not good ...
 
there is no reason to want these names to be unavailable, since they can easily be treated as subjective synonyms ...
 
Stephen

PS: I have copied this email to Adam Leache (first author of the "offending" paper), who hopefully might like to comment...
 
 

________________________________
From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: Thomas Pape <tpape at snm.ku.dk>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 7 June, 2010 1:51:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

> again, you too are imposing your own interpretation on what the Code
> actually says

This is the usual interpretation of the Code, not only a few persons' view.

> nothing here implies that it has to be an intrinsic attribute, so it seems
> to me to be a perfectly fine attribute of an organism that it belong to a
> population which clusters with other populations ...

"Being present", "being known", "differing from species B by its very well
recognizable characters", "being beautiful", "occuring only in Suriname",
"can be seen in autumn", "resembling very much species B and C", "size
like species B" and likewise features are not attributes for a species
either, that can be used for differentiating them in the sense of Art.
13.1.1.

When interpreting Art. 13.1.1, it is, as Denis suggested, also necessary
to think about the reason why this article is in the Code. If it had no
meaning, it would not stand there.
And if the English is not sufficient and allows weird interpretations,
then the French Code must be used, which is equivalent in force.

Francisco