[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Richard Pyle]

> it is not, and never was the job of the Code to prescribe 
> good taxonomic practice, and if we start down that road, then 
> how long until specification of molecular characters becomes 
> a mandatory requirement for the availability of new names??

At the current rate at which the Code gets updated?  I'd guess in about 400
years. 

[Self-depreciating humor...]

> as things are, the Code must be taken literally, and if the 
> intended meaning was different, then too bad for the Code...

But the point you have been missing is that there is more than one *literal*
way to interpret the existing wording of the Code in this case (and probably
most, if not all, other cases as well). You have been making proclamations
as if words and phrases in the Code can be interpreted *literally* in only
one way (i.e., your way).

> The ICZN can do one or both of only two things:
> 
> (1) rewrite parts of the Code to make it clearer; and/or

Yup, definitely in the works for the 5th Edition.

> (2) give OPINIONS on specific cases brought to its attention.
> 
> The ICZN cannot, without rewriting the Code, indicate that 
> what is written actually means something other than what it 
> literally says ...

I agree.  

But it *CAN* assess alternate *literal* interpretations of the words in the
Code (which do, in fact, exist), and determine which among those *equally
literal* interpretations is best representative of the intent and overall
objectives of the Code.

Aloha,
Rich