[Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code

[Adam Cotton]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Philipp Wagner" <philipp.wagner.zfmk at uni-bonn.de>
To: "Adam Cotton" <adamcot at cscoms.com>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>; "ICZN 
List" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [iczn-list] provisions to the Code


> Dear Adam,
>
> of course it must not be a dead specimen, it can be a living specimen in 
> captivity or even an illustrated specimen. But it is impossible to fix an 
> observed specimen because you cannot link it with an individual, 
> especially if it is a secondary observation.
>
> Philipp
>
>



Philipp,

I do agree with you that a second hand observational record cannot be linked 
with an individual specimen (whether in a collection or in the wild), and I 
also agree that in this particular instance it is extremely dubious whether 
Hoser could actually conclusively identify differential characters from an 
observation record.

I was arguing with your comments on the Code and its interpretation, and 
your recommendation that certain authors' publications just be ignored.

Good luck sorting out all this mess in a Code compliant manner,

Adam.