N. S. Abdelhamid wrote,
"I followed with interest the discussion about Taxonomy and wondered about
the mechanism of changing Taxonomy on any level (as well as deciding about
new species).
 
"Upon whom is vested the competence to decide about these changes? and what
would cause one body of opinion to accept the decision of another body to
change?
 
"I think that we should agree upon a panel of competent, and scientific
persons to revise any proposal for change ( and perhaps accept new species)
and this on a universal basis."
 
What Paul Callomon said on this is true. But a few words should be added
about the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By general
agreement, the ICZN is empowered to rule on disagreements that are brought
to it, rather like the US Supreme Court. It does not rule on questions
without being asked in a formal Petition. Rulings are published as Opinions
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and they are final. Of course,
the entire system is voluntary--but if you don't play ball by the same
rules as everyone else, pretty soon you find that no one will play with
you.
 
Typical petitions might involve such questions as the following (couched in
less technical language than would actually be used):
 
I have an old book by John Doe in which several new species are named, but
I'm not sure if Doe followed binominal nomenclature consistently in it.
Should this book be used or not for purposes of taxonomy?
 
I rediscovered a forgotten species name that looks like an older synonym of
a well-known species name. It seems a shame to discard a well-used name for
an unknown one just because it's older. Do we have to use the older name,
or can we all agree not to use it?
 
I seem to be the first one in a hundred years to examine the type specimen
of a common species, Doeia johni. Unfortunately, it doesn't belong to the
same species that we've all been calling Doeia johni all these years. Can
we agree to make an exception to the rules here? I'd like to change the
type specimen to one that fits everybody's concept of the species.
 
   Cases are not always clearcut. In fact, they often aren't:
 
Two monographs on the same fossil mollusks from the same outcrop were
published in 1833, with a lot of new, synonymous species, and there is no
way now to tell which one was published first, especially since the dates
on the covers were deliberately falsified by at least one of the rival
conchologists, who were trying to beat each other into print. Can we agree
to assume that one of them was published before the other for purposes of
priority?
 
When Jane Doe named these new species, she didn't follow all the rules that
were current at the time. And the rules are so complex that some of my
colleagues don't even agree with me that she did anything wrong. Doe's
species have been in common use for so long that it will throw my
colleagues into despair if we change all the names now, and maybe I'd like
 to see that happen from sheer orneriness. So what are you going to do
about it?
 
Well, that gives you the idea. The ICZN is a legalistic body, and its
Bulletin reads like a series of legal opinions. But almost everyone follows
its rulings almost all of the time, just like law-abiding citizens.
 
P.S. You have some good threads going, Conchlanders. Keep it up!
 
Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama