Ok based on the material I can see in your posts I would concur it is a Nomen Nudem.

My reasons are as follows:

1. There is no characters presented in W&W that "purport to diagnose the taxon" hence the description does not meet Art 13a(i) of the ICZN 4th Edition.

and

2. The paper referred to for diagnosis and desciption (Storr, 1981) describes and defines the species A. praelongis, and this is said to be based upon material that is clearly not what is intended by the name A. lancasteri. Hence although Storr's description clearly includes what the later name is referring to it does not present information that delineates in any way what characters are referring to which form. Even if the characters were wrong it would not matter. Hence that description must be restricted to the authors intent. Therefore the paper (W&W, 1985) fails to meet Art 13a (ii) of the code. As such it is a Nomen Nudem and cannot be used.

As has been stated by both myself and CKing, Aplin's arguments are wrong. Also I will reiterate what CKing said which is very correct. All I have said here is about the availability of a name. Of course the taxon to which it was referred may be valid. I would not know, as you well know my specialty is Turtles. If there are other names available for the taxon I do not know this either.

I would like to make one comment on all this Ray. If you wish to continue your aims of describing various taxa, do so, you have every right to it. But I would ask you to think about the consequences of taxonomic change. Therefore it is in everyones interest (including your own) to make sure you do it well. When I work out where I am going to publish a paper I am not looking for someone who will publish it no questions asked. I look for the best journals in the world. So publish taxonomic changes in leading journals relevant to the field. In herpetology, Journal of Herpetology, Copeia, Biol. J. of the Linneaen Society, and others are worth while.

If you want to be sure of this I would recommend you run this by Glenn Shea and Hal Cogger, both know the squamates better than me.

Cheers, Scott

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]