Charlie et al.,

> A useful book is Judith E. Winston. 1999. Describing Species: Practical
Taxonomic Procedure for Biologists. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
518pp. This book discusses many of the issues brought up in Paolo's e-mail.
It is a good place to start in learning what goes into describing a new
species or genus.

It is a fine, clearly written book and I am glad to have it on my shelf.
Unfortunately, Wilson timed its publication badly, just before the Code was
revised (fourth edition, published 1999 and effective January 1, 2000). But
nearly all the rules are the same, and the discussion of whys and wherefores
behind the rules, which is really the meat of this book, is valuable indeed.


Well, with one exception that won't matter much to malacologists: Wilson's
treatment of trace fossils is stuck before 1985, when the third edition was
published and validated ichnotaxa (taxa based on trace fossils, including
named bivalve and gastropod burrows, trails, and borings). Maybe she can
clear it all up in a second edition.

> The essential book to read is International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o The Natural History
Museum, London. 306pp. In my opinion, if one does not own a copy of "The
Code", then one has no right to describe a new taxon.

Charlie, please don't tell me you've read the Code from cover to cover. It's
like reading a legal code. What am I saying? It IS a legal code! I did read
the 1964 and 1985 editions -- once -- in order to find everything that
pertained to trace fossils. But I got an article from it, and I'm happy to
say that most of my suggestions were incorporated into the 1999 Code. To be
fair, most of those suggestions had been kicking around for a decade or so
beforehand.

Each of the editions of the Code has its own flavor.

The first was short and sweet, easy to read and to understand. It didn't
fill a book by itself. The rules had few exceptions. But it wasn't very good
for untangling complex taxonomic cases.

The second edition, bound in dark blue, was long, complex, and full of
exceptions made for "special interests" (especially entomologists) and
recommendations that didn't have legal weight. The appendices had tables
helpfully explaining the usage of Greek and Latin in terms that acted mainly
as refreshers for those who had taken courses in these languages already.
Many of the rules had different cutoff dates and these were sometimes
backdated from the time the decision was made. The second edition had a
reputation for being complex for complexity's sake. Though it covered a lot
of ground, it was hard to find anything specific except by reading the
entire book. (Come to think of it, that's what Charlie recommended.)

The third edition was a great reform, and it was bound in a red cover. Some
of the more complex boojums were snarked out of the Code. Trace fossils
became legitimate again, obsolete names could be safely ignored, and so on.
The language was simplified a little, perhaps, but I must admit that the
Code was even more complex than ever.

The fourth edition, in green, was an attempt to streamline taxonomic
procedures somewhat. Among other things, the method for officially ignoring
an obsolete name was simplified and made rigorous, and some of the quirks of
using Latin for Latin names were abandoned, recognizing that most
taxonomists no longer know Latin, let alone Greek. The main difference with
this edition was its transparency. The drafts were debated on-line, and
after a few years in which the publisher tried to sell paper copies of the
book, it was placed on-line too. It should have been more of a triumph, but
this edition was the bittersweet one. While the draft was being debated
among biologists, other biologists pointed out that it would be better for
all living organisms to be treated under a single BioCode rather than
separate Codes for plants, animals, bacteria, etc. That too was debated
on-line. And while this was playing out, still other biologists asked why
the old systems should be perpetuated at all. They called instead for a
fresh start with a clade-based PhyloCode.

So that's where taxonomic codes stand today: More complex than ever!

Cheers,
Andrew K. Rindsberg

Geological Survey of Alabama

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/137 - Release Date: 10/16/2005

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------