[Taxacom] Morphological characters was New lizard species

[Stephen Thorpe]

>A formal requirement may be very real
for once I agree with you, unreservedly
in this case, the availability of names for taxa relies on the formality of description/diagnosis being met
very real, very important ... so what exactly?
the formality was met for the lizard names, so they are available ...




________________________________
From: "dipteryx at freeler.nl" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 9 June, 2010 8:20:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Morphological characters was New lizard species

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Stephen Thorpe
Verzonden: wo 9-6-2010 2:20

> It is a formality, that's all. 

***
A formal requirement may be very real. A marriage may be viewed
as 'just a formality' in some circles, but when it is a 
requirement for holding a job or in matters of inheritance, 
it may matter a great deal if all the formal requirements have 
actually been met, in the eyes of the law (the particular law 
that applies).
* * *

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Stephen Thorpe
Verzonden: wo 9-6-2010 4:06

> 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...

***
Of course it is desirable for any Code of nomenclature to be 
worded in language that is easily understood, but it is not the 
prime concern. The botanical Code (which is a lot more readable
than the zoological Code) somewhere uses the phrase "is to be 
based on the generic name equivalent to that type": which, 
in any way to read it, is nonsense: a name is one or more words 
and cannot be equivalent to a type, which is a specimen or 
illustration. The phrase is accompanied by a reference to another
provision so that it becomes clear what the intent is. Hopefully,
at some point, this awkward wording will be replaced by a phrasing 
that does makes sense, but by its context, there is no problem 
in applying the provision. 

The zoological Code is chock-full of words and phrases that are
idiomatic. This is an issue in the sense that it prevents its being
easily readable (or even readable without very considerabe effort),
but does not affect its application.

As I pointed out before: it looks to me that it would be very helpful
if the zoological Code were to be expanded with a lot more Examples,
as for instance of what is, and what is not, an adequate definition.
That could save a lot of work for those who are trying to get 
to know and understand the zoological Code.

Paul
_______________________________________________

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