[Taxacom] New lizard species

[John Noyes]

So why not just formally synonymise all the names they propose as new
and be done with it? It all boils down to the same thing - some
authors/experts will treat the names as valid whilst others will treat
them as invalid. I certainly agree that they are available. The crux of
the matter then reverts to "usage" as to whether or not the names should
be considered valid. There is no completely objective solution so far as
I can see. Over time it will be shown whether or not it is practical to
accept the "new species" as valid for whatever reason. The same applies
to most species. Their recognition is based only hypotheses that stand
or fall by continued testing.

John
 
John Noyes
Scientific Associate
Department of Entomology
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
South Kensington
London SW7 5BD 
UK
jsn at nhm.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 (0) 207 942 5594
Fax.: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
 
Universal Chalcidoidea Database (everything you wanted to know about
chalcidoids and more):
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/chalcidoids/
or
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids
 
Interactive catalogue and biological database of World Chalcidoidea on
CD:
Contact the publisher: DickyS._Yu at telus.net, or Dicky S. Yu, P.O.Box
48205, Bentall Centre, Vancouver B.C., V7X 1N8, CANADA; see also
www.taxapad.com  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: 08 June 2010 01:02
To: Bob Mesibov
Cc: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

alas, Bob, I think it is you who have missed the point! I agree
wholeheartedly with just about everything you have said, BUT:
the new gecko names are Code compliant - they designate (whole specimens
as) holotypes and offer a diagnosis which purports to differentiate the
taxa.
I AGREE that they should not have named these lineages as new species -
but they have done so, and they have done so in a Code compliant way.
You can choose to reject their taxonomy, but not their nomenclature.
There are three elements here: phylogeography, taxonomy, and
nomenclature. They have contributed something to our understanding of
the first, but unfortunately formalised it in taxonomic terms (a mistake
in both our opinions), but you can't fault them on nomenclatural
grounds, because they are in full compliance ...

Stephen




________________________________
From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: jfmate at hotmail.com; TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Tue, 8 June, 2010 11:52:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

Brit-bashing? No, just tongue-in-cheek, like my satirical take on
pompous editors.

But I feel strongly that your 'taxonomy in the molecular age' should be
old-style taxonomy reinforced and extended with molecular results, not
Leache-Fujita style *replacement* of old-style taxonomy with something
completely unusable.

Making the key point a 3rd time: Leache and Fujita have contributed
something to our understanding of lizard evolution, and nothing at all
to lizard taxonomy. If they were so determined to name 3 new species
they should have investigated those entities properly and published
taxonomic results properly. What they did is not taxonomy at all, in the
molecular age or at any other time.
-- 
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