[Taxacom] New lizard species

[Stephen Thorpe]

no, I'm not missing the point about the alleged multiplicity of "literal" meanings, I just don't agree (in general)

>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

Sounds dodgy to me! It would be like a bunch of self-appointed, non-regulated, "law lords" saying "we will decide on the interpretation of specific laws of the land, on a case by case basis, which best represent our interests and agendas..."

A good example of an article with a clear literal meaning which some refuse to aknowledge is this:

Article 16.2. Family-group names: type genus to be cited. In addition to satisfying the provisions of Articles 13-15, a new family-group name published after 1999 must be accompanied by citation of the name of the type genus (i.e. the name from which the family-group name is formed).

some people seem to think it is enough for the type genus to be mentioned somewhere in the description (article?). Clearly, however, it must be mentioned as the type genus, not just mentioned in any old context or just listed as an included genus. To 'cite' is to 'cite as something' (in this case to cite as type genus). I have already found many new family-group names proposed after 1999 which fail to comply with this, see http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_16.2_compliance_issue
Some commissioners seem to want to retrospectively reinterpret the article in order to avoid all this problematic cases ... bah!

Stephen




________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tue, 15 June, 2010 10:32:15 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] New lizard species

> 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