[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Stephen Thorpe]

I agree that is the issue (at least the "small picture" issue)

Yet again:

ICZN glossary: 
character, n. 
Any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa
 
to understand my point, it might help to read (or at least glance at):
 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2671956
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p306x3k440278g55/
etc.
 
when you say
 >attribute of organisms (Code Glossary)<
you evidently mean intrinsic attribute of organisms, whereas the posted diagnosis makes use of extrinsic attributes of organisms (i.e., attributes of their populations)

however the Code reads "ANY attribute of organisms ...', which I interpret as unrestricted intrinsic or extrinsic
 
what the Code says and what it intended to say may be two different things, but if so, then it is the fault of the Code, not the authors of taxa, if they follow what it actually said rather than what was intended ...
 
Stephen



________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 9 June, 2010 1:12:40 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New lizard species


Testing out my repaired email connection -- so if this doesn't go, so much
the better.... 

> By my count, four active ICZN Commissioners, and one former ICZN
Commissioner 
> (including two former presidents of ICZN) have all weighed in on this
thread.  
> They have been unanimous in their assesment that the diagnosis, at least
as 
> presented to Taxacom, fails to comply with Article 13.1.1 of the ICZN Code
> 
> truth by consensus, eh?

Truth?  Goodness no! But a reasonably good indication of an appropriate
interpretation of the Code.

> the ICZN has no mandate whatsoever to place any restrictions on what 
> is or is not an allowable taxonomic character or taxonomic methodology, 
> it can only regulate NAMES for taxa, by prescribing FORMATS (not CONTENT) 
> that taxonomists must follow
>    
> if you don't understand that, then you should not, IMHO, be a commissioner
...

Hmmmm....not sure where that one came from.  The Commissioners of which I
spoke were specifically talking about the availability of the name under
Art. 13.1.1.  The issue is not whether something is, or is not an allowable
taxonomic character.  The issue is about whether the character is an
attribute of organisms (Code Glossary), or an attribute of populations
(posted Diagnosis).

Aloha,
Rich