[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Stephen Thorpe]

sounds like Bob is indulging in some "Brit bashing", which seems very popular at the moment (BP) ... !

this thread has developed in such a way that several key problems are now evident:

(1) the Code itself, and interpretation thereof

(2) taxonomy in the molecular age

(3) peer review (i.e., who should the peers include for a work involving molecular taxonomy? Should it not include some people who are not themselves molecular taxonomists? How many?)

As for (1), I am astonished with the "revelation" that to be Code compliant, a taxonomist must read and understand both the English and the French versions, and then go with the version that is more precise and restrictive! I would also draw your attention to one crucial word ('purported') in:

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

the characters offered need not actually differentiate the taxon, they only need to purport to do so

I strongly suspect that the original intention of Article 13.1.1. was just to disqualify catalogue-type publications that were popular long ago, where new names were listed without any diagnosis or illustration, e.g.,

Stephens, J.F. 1829: A systematic catalogue of British insects: being an attempt to arrange all the hitherto discovered indigenous insects in accordance with their natural affinities. London: Baldwin and Cradock.

but the current crop of taxonomists of a nomenclatural disposition seem to be trying to reinterpret the Code to suit themselves ...

Stephen



________________________________
From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
To: jfmate at hotmail.com
Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Tue, 8 June, 2010 10:57:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

Hi, Jason.

"...maybe it it would have been more constructive to send a nicely worded letter to the journal and the authors suggesting that they publish an addendum in the next issue that is more code compliant."

Don't know about 'constructive'. My first thought was to send a strongly worded letter to the ProcRoySocB editor in chief, pointing out that they'd published a turkey online and that before it hit print the article should be pulled and rewritten either (a) with the diagnoses transformed or (b) the pseudotaxonomy removed. Recent experience with editors and other influential non-scientists suggests I would have received a reply something like this one:

'Thank you for your comments. All our articles are peer-reviewed before publication by an editorial board consisting of leading experts in the field. In this particular case no editor or reviewer saw any problem with the taxonomic section of the article and it was therefore published as submitted.'

Leache and Fujita work in the USA, but published in a UK journal. The infamous New Zealand work which saw Onychophora names based on allozyme patterns was published in a Linnean Society (UK) journal. Perhaps the well-documented decline in taxonomy in the UK (see the two House of Lords reports, inter alia) has created a more relaxed attitude towards taxonomy there...
-- 
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
03 64371195; 61 3 64371195
Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/mesibov.html

_______________________________________________

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