Again, not having read WW's latest unpublished paper, I will not comment on the taxonomic issues therein. But Scott Thomson made an assertion which which I disagree.

Scott Thomson:
"Determining if a name should be used is a separate issue from wether the taxon it is applied to is valid."

Me:
I do agree with this statement. Whether a particular name is valid or available is a separate issue from whether a taxon to which the name may apply is valid or not.

Scott Thomson:
"Iverson et al. ... 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."

Me:
Chelodina and "Macrochelodina" are higher taxa. Higher taxa are entirely categories of artificial human construct. There is no universally accepted definition for any higher taxa, although it has been customary to define animal phyla on the basis of their different body plans. Different biologists may recognize different numbers of kingdoms for example. Hence it is possible that some people will recognize two or more higher taxa (including genera) while others may only recognize one. Such disagreements are entirely philosophical and subjective. Hence there is no way to "prove" whether two species belong in the same higher taxon or not. Therefore there is nothing that could compel anyone to recognize "Macrochelodina." Further, even if the genus Chelodina were to be split, the name "Macrochelodina" may or may not be used. For example, if the type species of "Macrochelondina" should be considered a member of Chelodina, then the name becomes a junion synonym. In that case, another name may need to be applied to the other genus or genera resulting from the split. Whether "Macrochelodina" is a valid taxon or not is therefore, as Scott Thomson had stated earlier in his post, a different issue than whether the name is valid or not.

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