[Taxacom] [iczn-list] GENERAL CALL TO BATTLE

[Richard Pyle]

> Your view, as I understand it, is that a DNA only description 
> attaches a new name to an individual organism, 
> by way of it's DNA sequence. 

It has *nothing* to do with DNA-only descriptions!  This is how the Code works for *all* names, going back to Linnaeus, and long before DNA was even known to exist.  This is what typification is all about.

> This is pure nomenclature, with no taxonomy involved, right? 

Yes -- that's what we're talking about, right? Code compliance? Nomenclatural rules?  At least I thought that's what this thread (these threads) was/were about.  Yes, we definitely have an important discussion about good taxonomy, but this particular thread (subject line) was launched in the context of ICZN actions.

> It is effectively the same as someone publishing 
> a list of specimens and proposing a new name 
> for each of them, thus forcing future taxonomists 
> to consider those names if they propose a new 
> taxon which includes one of those specimens. 

Sort of, yes.  Obviously that would be very bad *taxonomy*, but the way the rule is currently written (Art. 13.1.1), the requirements beyond designating a name-bearing type are extremely anemic. My point is that we should either abandon the rule, or give it some teeth.

> I strongly suggest that doing this should be avoided 
> at all costs, because it actually makes the "taxonomic 
> impediment" worse, not better! 

Yup, agreed!  There are lots of ways to do bad taxonomy, and bad taxonomy probably does more harm than good in most cases.  But as we all know, the Code isn't about legislating good taxonomic practice, it's about establishing a quasi-legal mechanism through which we established new names in a way that is as objective as possible.

Aloha,
Rich