Scott Thomson wrote:



"Ignoring names that meet the requirements of the ICZN is not an option. This cannot be done under strict application of the rules as the names if valid are Available and must be used. The alternative is to refute them. So disagree with the names all you like, 'Refute or Accept'. That is publish a valid refutation of the taxon to which the name applies."



Ignoring taxonomic proposals is indeed an option. For example, Kluge proposed that the genus Chondropython should be synonymized with the genus Morelia because recognizing Chondropython renders Morelia paraphyletic. Both names are available under the rules of the ICZN, but I disagree with Kluge's proposal because it is based on an intolerance of paraphyletic taxa. Such disagreements are based on classificatory philosophy and are well known among taxonomists. Therefore it is unlikely that my disagreemnt with Kluge will be published in a journal. Nevertheless nobody is required by the ICZN to follow Kluge's taxonomic proposal nor is anyone required to publish a paper refuting Kluge. The customary practice is for each person to review the evidence presented by an author and to either accept or reject the proposal based on one's own evaluation of the evidence.



"Second I also agree that taxonomic changes should be restricted to specific journals. However I acknowledge that the ICZN does not support this. This is something that I feel should be addressed by the ICZN and I would even go as far as a list of 'accepted' journals."



Quite correct. The ICZN does not have a list of such accepted journals because such a list would be outdated as soon as it is published. New journals can come into existence at any time. The purpose of the ICZN is not to judge the quality of scientific journals or to discriminate against new journals. The ICZN would be seen as doing both if they maintain a list of journals in which taxonomic proposals must be published.



"How names are formulated is irrelevant and they only have to use the 'Latin Alphabet' under the rules, not be latinised. One of the species I described was Elseya nadibajagu which is aboriginal for 'From a long time ago' (its a fossil, 6 million years old). This is not a Latinised name at all, it just uses the Latin Alphabet."



You are quite correct. I stand corrected. According to the ICZN, any word can be used. However, the ICZN's draft for the 4th edition contains the following:



'Recommendation 11D. Use of vernacular names.- An unmodified vernacular word should not be used as a scientific name. Appropriate latinization is the preferred means of modification.'



"Nomenclature is pretty black and white. There are a set of rules. Apply them, if the name is valid, use it, if not reject it. If you don't like it.... well I don't recall that being in the rules."



The rules cannot be used to settle taxonomic disputes between different schools of taxonomy, such as those between the Hennigians and the Darwinians. The rules are silent on the acceptability of paraphyletic taxa and will likely remain so forever. Therefore there is nothing in the rules that would require anyone to splinter paraphyletic taxa nor is there anything in the rules that requires anyone to follow taxonomic proposals that are meant to disqualify or destroy paraphyletic taxa. Conversely, no Hennigian is required by the rules to accept paraphyletic taxa. However, the stated purpose of the ICZN is to promote taxonomic stability. Hence one can very well argue that the stated purpose and the very existence of the ICZN are both contradictory to the taxonomic instability that is the direct result of the Hennigian's intolerance of paraphyletic taxa.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]