[Taxacom] Morphological characters was New lizard species
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue Jun 8 21:06:44 CDT 2010
Closing ranks again, I see!
I am not going to argue the points that you make (there is no point), except that I am not aware that I said or implied the 2nd of the 3 things below that you preface with 'NONE of the Commissioners...' If I did say or imply that, then I take it back unreservedly, but I can't see how I could have said such a thing when I have made very little reference to the issue of 'molecular characters' at all...
the issue is just this: the mandate of the ICZN is to regulate names for zoological taxa, by way of promoting stability, i.e., if we have a set of rules which we all follow, then we can all recognise the same correct spelling, authorship, date, relative priority, etc. Without this regulation, the result would be (greater) chaos. IT is NOT the place of the ICZN to prescribe, for example, which sorts of characters are appropriate for taxonomy. I actually think that having commissioners who are taxonomists may be a bad idea!
Additionally, I think we are all in trouble if the Code is "idiomatic", i.e., the literal meaning is not the correct one, and/or if one has to be fluent in both English and French to interpret it properly...
if the Code says "any attribute", then any attribute it is ...
if the Code says "purports", then it is irrelevant that the new taxon cannot in fact be recognised as the 33rd piece of cheese hanging from the moon at midnight...
the Code is not there to save us from bad taxonomy, but only to help ensure that we use the same names for the same taxa GIVEN a particular taxonomic opinion ...
Stephen
________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Sent: Wed, 9 June, 2010 1:31:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Morphological characters was New lizard species
Stephen,
You seem to be confusing all sorts of different things in your positions on
this thread. For the record:
NONE of the Commissioners who have commented on this thread have confused
nomenclature and taxonomy.
NONE of the Commissioners who have commented on this thread have suggested
that molecular characters should be treated any differently from
morphological characters, when considering whether or not a name has been
established in compliance with the Code.
NONE of the Commissioners who have commented on this thread have attempted
to distort the Code in order to ignore what some might interpet as "poor
quality taxonomy".
Doug is not a "revisionist"; he is simply offering his insight on how to
best interpret the meaning of the ICZN Code. I suspect that most current
and previous Commissioners would largely agree with his interpretation.
I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that a statement along the lines
of "this species can be recognised as the 33rd piece of cheese hanging from
the moon at midnight" satisfies the intended meaning of Article 13.1.1. I
doubt that many Commissioners (present or past), or praciticing taxonomists,
would share this belief with you.
Aloha,
Rich
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 2:20 PM
> To: Doug Yanega; TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Morphological characters was New lizard species
>
> well, I might be a "dedicated pedant", but Doug is an equally
> dedicated revisionist, simply trying to rewrite history to
> address the present concerns of some in the taxonomic
> community whereby what is deemed to be poor quality taxonomy
> can be ignored completely on the grounds that the names
> aren't even available. This is however, a clear abuse of any
> mandate that the ICZN might have. It is somewhat ironic that
> the targets of this abuse are molecular taxonomists this
> time, as opposed to the Makhans and Wells' of this world. I
> could describe a new species with the diagnosis: 'this
> species can be recognised as the 33rd piece of cheese hanging
> from the moon at midnight', and I will have complied fully
> with Article 13.1.1 , which only requires that I offer a
> description or diagnosis that purports to differentiate the
> taxon, and this I have done. It is a formality, that's all.
> The issue of the quality of the diagnosis is another issue
> altogether, and is no business whatsoever of the ICZN. One
> would hope that a diagnosis like the one above would be
> rejected at the stage of peer review. This leads me to the
> point that peer review of the lizard article would seem to
> have involved only other molecular taxonomists. Delimiting
> who the "peers" are is another tricky issue ...
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu>
> To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
> Sent: Wed, 9 June, 2010 11:59:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Morphological characters was New lizard species
>
> Jason Mate wrote:
>
> >Dear Fred, your argument assumes that only morphological differences
> >can define species; alas there are numerous examples that prove this
> >argument fallacious. Off the top of my head, the A. gambiae complex.
> >I cannot defend nor criticize the paper that spurred the
> whole argument
> >in the first place since I don´t have access to a copy but even
> >assuming that it is truly "rubbish", one example doesn´t set
> a rule. In
> >the end molecular data will become part of the tool-kit of
> taxonomists.
> >That doesn´t mean that I endorse Phylocode. However their
> strengths lie
> >precisely in the Code´s weaknesses and this thread is a good example
> >that maybe some changes might be necessary to accomodate the
> shifting
> >reality "out there". Since we have several commisioners
> following this
> >thread they could suggest something?
>
> I'm not sure that there is anything needed here in the way of
> suggestions, as this is a false dichotomy. Let me illustrate my point:
>
> Consider the following possible diagnoses:
>
> (1) Taxon X is diagnosable by its possession of "AT" in the
> 16th & 17th codon positions of the "eyeless" gene, where all
> known congeners possess "CC" or "CG" at these positions.
>
> (2) Taxon X is genetically different from taxon Y.
>
> Example #1, while purely molecular in nature, is a perfectly
> code-compliant diagnosis, and - other things being equal -
> would suffice to make a taxon name available. Example #2 is
> NOT a code-compliant diagnosis, and is precisely analogous to
> the present example. Significantly, example #2 is not
> unavailable because it is based on molecular data, but
> because it does not state in words what the "diagnostic
> molecules" actually ARE. Stephen seems to be of the belief
> that the present case is simply a matter of how ones defines
> a "character", and it is not *just* about that. The Code
> Article in question reads "accompanied by a description or
> definition that STATES in words..." - and I emphasize the
> word "states" here because that is where the primary failure
> here lies. The purportedly diagnostic characters HAVE NOT
> BEEN STATED in the description.
>
> Note that neither example lives or dies on the basis of the
> perceived validity of the taxonomy, which is purely
> subjective; this is strictly a matter of whether the
> description complies with the nomenclatural rules, and
> example #2 fails the test for exactly the same reason the
> lizard descriptions fail. Other diagnoses which would fail
> would be things like:
>
> (3) Taxon X is diagnosable by being all individuals below
> node Y in our cladogram.
>
> (4) Taxon X is diagnosable by its being the sister to taxon Y
> in our analysis.
>
> (5) Taxon X is diagnosable by being called "purumbe" by the
> local villagers, while taxon Y is referred to as "sasambe".
>
> (6) Taxon X is diagnosable by virtue of my liking this
> species, while I dislike its congeners.
>
> A dedicated pedant might insist that these are "attributes of
> organisms" and therefore "characters", but they are not. A
> position on a cladogram is NOT a character, nor is the name
> given to an organism, nor one's opinions about an organism.
> They are all purely subjective.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list