[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Richard Pyle]

> And Robin, I promise these are my "last words" on this 
> thread.  Now anyone else with "lastworditis" can have your last words.

OK, I'll bite.  Four things:

1) The Code is available online here:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/
...and you can go directly to the glossary here:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?booksection=glossary
I'm not aware of any discrepancies between the online version of the Code,
and the official paper-printed copy.

2) Perhaps the word "organisms" (plural) is used to imply that a taxon will
always be comprised of more than a single individual organism. Article 1.3.2
of the Code
(http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article=1)
specifically excludes teratological specimens. One presumes that, in order
to know whether (or not) a particular specimen is teratological, one must
have a foundation for comparison (i.e., other organisms). Alternatively, if
"character" is taken to mean something different from "character state",
then you could also say that more than one individual organism must
necessarily be involved -- at least one of the new taxon, and at least one
of some other animal taxon from which it is being differentiated.  The
character, in this case, would be shared by both, and it would be useful for
differentiating the taxa by comparing its state in each.  In either case, a
character -- if to be useful for "differentiating, or classifying taxa" --
would need to exist in more than one individual organism; hence the use of
the plural "organisms".  

3) Nothing about the glossary definition in question has implications for
taxa based on a single type specimen.  Just because a taxonomist had access
to only one specimen, doesn't negate that other individual organisms existed
in nature.  For a character to be useful for differentiating or classifying
taxa, the character would exist in (at least) the parent(s), sibling(s), or
children of the single type specimen. A taxonomist who establishes a new
name based on only one known individual organism obviously risks of running
afoul of Art. 1.3.2, but the speculation that a single specimen *may* be
teratological doesn't make it so (until comparitive evidence from other
organisms demonstrates it to be so).

4) You can see a list of the current ICZN Commissioners (and their photos)
here:
http://iczn.org/commissioners

Aloha,
Rich