[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Stephen Thorpe]

Geoff:

for the umpteenth plus one time:

character, n. 
Any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa. 


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

well, what does it mean TO YOU, Geoff? The authors (of the new lizard taxa) cited an attribute of the lizards for the clear purpose of recognizing, differentiating, and classifying the taxa. Check the box - that's what they did! It isn't a good attribute from a taxonomic perspective, but the Code does not require it to be. THEY ARE using the attribute for recognizing, differentiating, and classifying taxa. You might not want to use it, but so what?

I suspect that we have lost the real point of the debate here. Please recall that it started when someone (not me) tried to disqualify the new lizard names on the basis of alleged noncompliance with Article 13.1.1. They were being legalistic about it. All I am trying to say is that the precise meaning of Article 13.1.1 is not clear and unambiguous enough for such a charge of noncompliance to stick. It is open to interpretation, as you and others are clearly demonstrating. Far better to charge them with a "crime" that they clearly did commit, namely bad taxonomy. It means we have to carry their new names with us from now on, as subjective synonyms, but there is always going to be some fallout to deal with when someone does something silly. But manipulating the Code to try to make this go away is not the way to deal with it! For someone like me who uses the Code to help index taxa on Wikispecies, I need a Code that doesn't change meaning every time someone
 does some bad taxonomy ...

Stephen


________________________________
From: Geoffrey Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 9 June, 2010 7:14:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species

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 ...