I would like to take the opportunity to make a point here on names, not on any of the other points raised.

The issues concerning the use or non-use of names has become a favorite among herpetologists in Australia. Starting obviously with the publications by Wells and Wellington, 1985.

In the paper by Wuster et al. that discussed amature contributions to taxonomy, although I do not like the term amature I do agree with one point that is made. Determining if a name should be used is a separate issue from wether the taxon it is applied to is valid.

A. hawkei and A. rugosa are both Wells and Wellington names. Now as to wether they should be used is not up to anyone unless they can demonstrate it to be unavailable. In other words refute or accept, liking the the name, or not liking it has nothing to do with it.

Therefore, I ask is there a published paper refuting the validity of these names? Has anyone examined the paper, and published in a reviewed journal that the names cannot be used, stating the reasons? If not then they have to be used. Or they have to be sunk in the paper in question. The same goes for the genus name Cannia (Gray, 1842), is there a publication that resurrects it. If not then the fact that it has been synonimised with Pseudechis stands.

Wuster claims that O.s.barringeri is a nomen nudem as an example, giving reasons, though short reasons. Hence the name has been dealt with. After the original author posted that his name was valid I had a look myself and agree the name is Nomen Nudem, it had no diagnosis that used taxonomic characters as defined by the ICZN. In other words you cannot define a taxon by its locality as the author did.

Iverson et al, went through all the names proposed for turtles by Wells and Wellington and determined their validity against the ICZN rules, this was published in a peer reviewed International Journal. This is the best and really only way to sort out contentious names issues. We examined the types, the type data, the descriptions. We did not set out to destroy every name, we did not take the politics into account at all. If a name was valid then it stood, if not we sank it. Hence we ended up accepting E. purvisi, E. s. worrelli and the genus Macrochelodina. These are now all valid names, and have to be used. Wether people like the idea of splitting Chelodina into two general is irrelevant. If they do not like it they have to prove Chelodina and Macrochelodina are conspecific, not that the name should not be used. Hence it has gone onto the next step. This is the way it should be done.

Cheers, Scott
-----
Scott Thomson

http://www.carettochelys.com
http://ittn.net

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