mobile - desktop
Online/Stores/Expos - LLLReptile.com
News & Events:
Posted by WW on October 28, 2002 at 23:50:20:
In Reply to: Hoser's Taipan ... WW your stuck with the name posted by Paul Hackett on October 28, 2002 at 20:42:51:
:Having spoken to people here in Oz with hands on experience, the consenus is that Hoser's name is legit under the ICZN's code and therefore we're stuck with it.
That's the consensus between Ray Hoser, Paul Hackett, Bernard Frome, Pete Brammell, W. Hawke and Jim Paull, is it?
:WW, you seem to have mixed up taxonomy and nomenclature and perhaps you should take a course in both as well.
:Citing articles from the code in alleged support of your argument gets you nowhere as well.
Hmmm... Nomenclature is governed by the Code. However, the articles of the Code are irrelevant to discussions about nomenclature. That explains some of your taxonmomy, I suppose.
:You conceded Hoser published a diagnosis for the taxa barringeri and then go on to claim that it fails to convince you it's different, and then claim the name barringeri is nomen nudem.
It fails to convince me that it adheres to the requirements of the Code. If it does not, then it is a nomen nudum.
:The code expressly forbids this, both in the preabmle and in the articles you cited but then chose not to quote.
So why don't you quote them and show me where I have gone wrong?
:The relevent section states that the diagnosis only needs to purport to tell the differences.
I cited it in full. Your attempts to paraphrase them does not alter the text as given in the Code.
:Thus, if Hoser's diagnosis is in fact inadequate as you contend, then should anyone else later find Hoser's division correct, they are duty bound under the rule of priority to use the name.
This might be a nice test case, I suppose, of exactly how much laxness the Commission is willing to tolerate. However, it's very unlikely to come up, since nobody is going to be paying any attention to your new subspecies - after all, you concede yourself that there are no morphological differences and that there is no DNA evidence in existence. To everyone ecept you, that would indicate that subspecies status is unwarrranted.
The only time a test case would come up is if someone else did describe the WA taipan under a different name, and a petition to the Commission for a ruling ensued.
As an aside, I find it amusing that you now make no claim of any differences between your new ssp. and the nominate form, that you yourself clearly regard the entire thing as an exercise of nomenclature rather than taxonomy, and that you feel the need to reinforce your supposedly scientific arguments with a photo of you freehandling dopy pet taipans - the girls back home might be impressed, but among most forum regulars, it tends to generate the kneejerk response "What a D*ckhead!".