Taxacom: Reptile Database GitHub?

[Douglas Yanega]

On 10/1/22 6:29 PM, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> what I would
> find interesting in any Taxacome discussion is the nature of non-code
> compliant decisions being made. The code is just an evolving agreement
> among some, and usually followed by most. But if one does not accept the
> code in some respect, then one might expect an explanation so anyone may
> decide for themselves whether such a decision makes sense - whether or not
> they agree with it. I am guilty, along with various lepidopterists, in not
> following the code with respect to gender agreement modifications of
> existing names. But I otherwise try to follow the code as best I can or as
> best as I understand. And I can accept being criticised for the exception.
> I don't care about whether anyone may be considered a taxonomic 'vandal' or
> not, just the nature of their decision, with which I may or may not agree.

The situation with lepidopterists not following gender agreement, and 
the situation with herpetologists "boycotting" certain names, are both 
things that are not permitted under the Code, but - as you note - 
compliance with the Code is a voluntary agreement that may or may not be 
followed. It bears repeating, and emphasis, but it also bears mentioning 
that these two *particular* issues hover on the edge of Code-compliance; 
either of them could be brought into full compliance if the adherents 
filed LAN applications under Article 79.

Article 79 grants *bodies of taxonomic authorities* the ability to 
provide a list of names that they wish to recognize as available, fix 
parameters of those names, and also omit from this list any names they 
do not wish to be available. So, if the lepidopterists wish all species 
epithets to be treated as indeclinable (i.e., as if they were nouns), if 
a large group of lepidopterological authorities provides a LAN 
containing all lepidopteran names and declare all the epithets on the 
list to be nouns, then they could establish this WITHIN the Code, 
instead of being in violation. Likewise, if a large group of 
herpetological authorities submits a LAN that omits "boycotted" names, 
then if the LAN is approved, those omitted names are permanently 
unavailable, and this would also be WITHIN the Code.

There are three important points here:

(1) The reason that Article 79 exists is to give large groups of 
taxonomists more direct and nuanced control over the nomenclature of 
their particular taxa than the Code would otherwise allow, *so long as 
the list they provide is based on consensus of the relevant 
authorities*. In other words, the ICZN acknowledges that the authorities 
working on a group should ultimately be the final arbiters of how names 
are used in their group, even when that usage may not be in strict 
compliance with the other Articles in the Code. The PRINCIPLE here is an 
important one; a decision achieved by explicit consensus CAN be the 
final word, even when otherwise not allowed.

(2) On the technical side, the present text of Article 79 makes the task 
of getting approval for a LAN very difficult and time-consuming, 
including an extremely unfortunate "cutoff" restriction in Art. 79.2.2.4 
that precludes a LAN from being up-to-date when published, and likewise 
not allowing updates on an ongoing basis. For anyone contemplating the 
benefits of a LAN submission, I would strongly urge you to write to the 
Commission and request that, at a bare minimum, the present wording of 
Article 79.2.2.4 be replaced with text specifically permitting that a 
LAN can have *new names added to it* once it has been approved (i.e., 
names published after the date the final LAN draft was submitted), so 
long as those names are screened and added by the same body of 
authorities. There are presently numerous bodies of taxonomic 
authorities that maintain public "authority files" for the taxon names 
in their group, and we would better serve the community if we were able 
- in essence - to expedite the recognition of THEIR authority files as 
ICZN-endorsed LANs.

(3) Ultimately, all of this serves to promote stability of nomenclature. 
The "trick", as it were, is to find a way to establish and maintain 
authority files that are based on consensus AND are compliant with the 
Code. We have, in Article 79, a way that very nearly allows us to do 
this, but still needs a little more refinement to make it both practical 
and palatable. It is important to the future of taxonomy, and I urge 
people to consider very carefully how we can move forward to improve 
this functionality within the Code, and communicate their ideas and 
concerns to the Commission. It would be GREAT if there were only one 
place to find all fish names, or all bird names, or all dragonfly names, 
or all mollusc names, etc., and that what it said in that one place was 
utterly authoritative.

As an aside, recent discussions about the replacement of taxon names 
perceived as "offensive" could - in large part - also fall under this 
general issue. Even if the Code does not permit such replacements, a LAN 
submission could be used to replace existing names if the relevant body 
of authorities feels that they wish to do so. The point is that allowing 
arbitrary and unilateral replacement of existing names is disruptive, 
and must be avoided, but if all of the authorities in a group 
*collectively* decide that the consequences of a name change is 
acceptable to everyone in their community, then they *could* replace a 
name at their discretion. Stability is not strictly synonymous with 
permanence. If everyone, everywhere, switches from referring to taxon X 
by name A to name B, then there is only one name actively being used for 
taxon X, and everyone will know that any older literature linked to 
obsolete taxon name A refers to taxon X; that is actually *more* stable 
than subjective synonymies, because it is unambiguous and irreversible.

The Code is a tool that is subject to being redesigned to work better, 
and also has certain functions that may not be familiar to all users. 
There IS room for improvement, and for feedback.

Sincerely,

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C3fec4bac0cc4488a3d4508daa563ded9%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638004145599120525%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Vdhe%2BWbSMMf%2BYItKWGCHxBcTDniVuYUlWSiJYf66uVE%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82