[Taxacom] Morphological characters was New lizard species

[Stephen Thorpe]

yes, but I am not the one trying to do a hatchet job on some new lizard names by insisting that their diagnosis does not comply with Article 13.1.1
I am the one who is interpreting the article in such a way as to give them the benefit of the doubt (by saying that 'attribute' must be taken in its most unrestricted sense)
and I am actually defending molecular taxonomists! And I think they clearly should not have named these lizard lineages as new species! 
I am defending bad taxonomy from an attack from the wrong quarter (i.e., nomenclature)
the real question we should be asking is how did their article make it through peer review? Were the reviewers all "in group" (no pun intended!) molecular taxonomists of like mind? Is this REALLY peer review?




________________________________
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 2:45:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Morphological characters was New lizard species

One last comment (promise!)

> Additionally, I think we are all in trouble 
> if the Code is "idiomatic", i.e., the literal 
> meaning is not the correct one

The problem is not that the "literal" meaning differs from the "correct"
one.  The problem is that there is more than one possible "correct"
interpretation of the same literal set of words.  This is why I originally
referenced legal codes, because judges have to deal with that sort of thing
all the time.  All languages (particularly American English) suffer from
imprecision.  The ICZN Code is not immune from such imperfections of
language (no Code is; indeed no assemblage of more than a few words is).  

You seem to want to purport that there is only one "literal" meaning of the
phrase "Any attribute of organisms...." (i.e, your interpretation of it),
and thereby suggest that other contributors to this thread who interpret
this phrase differently from you, are doing so idiomatically.  But this
phrase can *legitimately* be interpreted in more than one way, and hence
there is not a single "literal" meaning.  As such, we must arbitrate among
the different possible legitimate meanings, and decide which best represents
the intent of the Code.

As for being "in trouble", that much has been obvious for a long time!

Aloha,
Rich