[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Doug Yanega]

>So let us recap:
>
>your mission is to convince us that the new gecko names are not Code compliant
>
>I say that they clearly are Code compliant, based on a 
>straightforward reading of the English version of the relevant ICZN 
>article:
>
>13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in 
>words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon

Let's recap:

"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."

Assuming Bob cited this correctly, then this is neither a definition 
nor a description using characters. It refers to population-level 
phenomena, and does not even bother to include within the diagnosis 
itself a statement indicating those features which cause populations 
to group together in statistical space. The issue of a diagnosis 
based solely on geographic distribution has come up before, but this 
text doesn't even do that much; it is an *undefined* feature or set 
of features (presumably referred to elsewhere *outside* of the 
species description) that ostensibly allow for diagnosis. That's no 
different from a diagnosis which says "This species is diagnosed from 
its relatives by a variety of characters including distribution" and 
leaving it at that. You have to say WHAT those characters ARE.

Do these authors say what those characters are in their descriptions? 
If not, then they are not code-compliant.

Sincerely,
-- 

Doug Yanega        Dept. of Entomology         Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314        skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82