>>I am honestly lost for words.



A common feeling in this context



>>Anyway, I think if anything it's best to take these things with a pinch of salt. However, I appreciate the concerns of Wuster et al. who must have grave fears that these names actually enter common usage!



Some may have to be used if the names do indeed turn out to be the oldest available names for a valid species or genus - this will very probably be the case for at least some of these taxa. Hoser has been pretty careful to adhere to the rather minimalist requirements of the Code, and most of his names are available.



On the plus side, in an age of rampant splitting of genera (1 phylogeny - 3 new genera seems to be the rule), I suspect Hoser's work will promote a lot of lumping among pythons - I can't imagine anyone will want to split the python in a manner that would force recognition of jewels such as Lenhoserus or Broghammerus, and might be tempted to doa bit of lumping to avoid that.



In any case, my personal view is that if one of the taxa described by Hoser turns out to be a valid biological entity, then the credit goes to the person who actually provided the evidence - the fact that someone already gave it a name in an evidence-free study does not detract from that. For instance, as far as I am concerned, Acanthophis wellsi was identified and described by Aplin & Donnellan - Hoser named it (because he knew from Aplin & Donnelkan that it was being described), but the credit clearly goes to A&D. Appropriate use of citations in subsequent papers can highlight where the credit really belongs.



Cheers,



WW
-----
WW Home

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