[Taxacom] New lizard species

Mon Jun 7 04:18:09 CDT 2010

Stephen,

You did not answer my question about what attribute of an organism that
is contained in the diagnosis I should check in order to make an
identification of a given specimen.

This is not about usefulness but about how to recognise code-compliant
descriptions. If you cannot point to any attribute, it may be because
there is none.

If the diagnosis is code-compliant, it has to contain "taxonomic
characters". So, what are the taxonomic characters mentioned in the
diagnosis? The potential to "cluster" with other specimens?

/Thomas

From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: 7. juni 2010 10:38
To: Thomas Pape; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

Thomas,

You are thinking in terms of intrinsic attributes, and also thinking
that the taxonomic uselessness of an attribute disqualifies from being
an attribute, but the Code imposes no such restrictions - you are
imposing them on the Code! Taxonomically useless descriptions can be
fully Code compliant. The Code attempts to nudge authors in the right
direction, but at the end of the day the Code has no control over bad
taxonomy ...

Stephen

________________________________

From: Thomas Pape <TPape at snm.ku.dk>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 7 June, 2010 8:12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

Stephen,
I am really trying to understand, what "attribute of organisms" you
think is contained in the lizard diagnosis. Please point to at least one
such attribute.
If I go to the collections of my museum and pull out one lizard
specimen, what "attribute of [that] organism" that is contained in the
diagnosis should I check in order to make an identification?
In a previous mail, you mention that "it seems to [you] to be a
perfectly fine attribute of an organism that it belong to a population
which clusters with other populations ...". But how should that be
applied to the specimen in our collection?
/Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: 7. juni 2010 01:49
To: Francisco Welter-Schultes
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; aleache at ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

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

_______________________________________________

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 <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 <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here