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

[Stephen Thorpe]

 Rich,
"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"
Yes, I know that! I'm just applying it to the particular case of DNA-only descriptions to illustrate that no taxonomy is involved, it is just someone saying "hey taxonomists, I'm giving whatever taxonomic entity includes this DNA sequence the name Aus bus, so you are going to have to take it into account if you do any future taxonomic work on the group". It leaves the taxonomist with no morphological clues as to the species so named, so I suggest that it is nothing but big problem for taxonomy! This problem could be avoided if the Code were to prohibit DNA-only descriptions. The Code would not thereby be meddling in taxonomy because there is no taxonomy involved in DNA-only descriptions! The Code would simply be prohibiting one process by which names can be proposed in a way that can negatively impact on taxonomy.
Cheers, Stephen
    On Monday, 15 February 2021, 08:50:43 am NZDT, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:  
 
 > 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