[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Geoffrey Read]

Stephen,

While I agree this particular detail of the requirement for availability
is skittering precariously along the edge of the taxonomy field,
nevertheless it's there. In the current Code there is a requirement and an
expressed recommendation for real content to be present in taxonomic
descriptions (the plural 'characters' is indeed used - a strong hint of
what is expected).   Content that differentiates the taxon, else the name
availability is in doubt. People usually easily supply this content, so
that it is communicated and is of practical use to other biologists across
the world. Those who don't may be noticed and pointed at.

By the way Stephen you repeatedly miss out the 2nd half of the definition
of character. The second phrase is important.

Geoff


On Wed, June 9, 2010 9:08 am, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Geoff, you have some very sensible opinions, but you express them in
> inappropriate contexts! Of course it is very sensible to find more than
> one character to differentiate a taxon, for all the reasons you mention!
> But it is irrelevant to the present argument, for the Code does not have a
> mandate to judge what is or isn't sensible in taxonomy! The Code is
> concerned with the regulation of names for taxa, period! That is why it
> would be absurd FOR THE ICZN to insist on more than one character. It is
> also the reason why the ICZN cannot delimit the nature or kind of
> characters used. These issues are for taxonomists to decide, and they
> impact only on the VALIDITY of proposed names, not their AVAILABILITY ...