Available Now at New York Worms!
News & Events:
Posted by rayhoser on May 19, 2003 at 23:06:46:
In Reply to: Is Oxyuranus scutellatus berringeri Hoser, 2002 valid? posted by richardwells on May 13, 2003 at 02:30:52:
Thanks Richard for your long piece on OSB.
Don't agree with all you say, but if I did, the world would be boring.
Basically, it appears that you and WW think my diagnosis is ratfeces or words to that effect.
That's fine and on that basis, yourselves and anyone else for that matter are free to ignore the description.
I took the liberty of running the comments past a few other taxonomists here and they made the following comments.
They said that if my diagnosis is no good then it would follow that OSB is not a valid taxa and hence the name OSB is not valid.
However if my diagnosis is no good, but I have still fixed a holotype for a hitherto unrecognised taxa as regulated by the ICZN's code then the name OSB remains the one and only one that can be used, due the description conforming to the code itself.
Aparantly the same thing happened with Cyclodomorphus michaeli, which was allegedly improperly diagnosed in the original description, but when revisited by Shea, he was forced to use that name as a HOLOTYPE for the taxa had been fixed AND there was a diagnosis published, even though it was completely wrong (allegedly).
That is (I assume from WW's comments) the case alleged with Barringeri.
I was also told that should another person write a "NEW" description of OSB and called it something else, that'd be to my advantage (If this is the correct ay to put it) in that the description would presumably add weight to my original contention that OSB is distinct and worthy of such recognition.
Any subsequent name would in effect be a junior synonym of OSB and hence OSB's common usage would be further cemented.
BTW In relation to the header of this post, another one of my alleged numen nudems Acanthophis wellsi has moved into even more common usage, with (for example) even the WA Wildlife department (no mates of mine!!) using the name on their own website and published literature.
Which has a photo of "Pilbara Death Adder (Acanthophis wellsi)".
Maybe herr Wolfgang should jump down their throats and lecture them about the alleged inadequacies of my original description and how it should be an alleged nomen nudem.
Ditto for that weigeli thing and the other critters I either described or redescribed from WA.
ALL THE BEST