Describing new species in tabular format

[Stefan Revets]

Dear All,

With apologies to our Botanical colleagues, the ICZN states the following:

Article 13. Names published after 1930.
(a) Requirements -- To be available, every new scientific name published
after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11, and must be
(i) accompanied by a description or definition that states in words
characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or
(ii) accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement
even if contained in a work published before 1758 or that is not
consistently binomial (...), or
(iii) proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an
available name.

Is it not the case that "a description or definition in words" is something
different from a table? Therefore, can we please lay this suggestion of
using tables to rest and quickly forget it was mentioned at all?

Considering all the hard work that has gone into recognising and defining
characters and their states, into scoring the many many taxa and finally
into producing the texts which will be of use to present and future
biologists trying to deal with the taxa described, what is wrong with those
long descriptions? Of all the effort and costs involved, the actual
publishing is the least. Then why skimp on the communication of the results?

So, please, let some sanity prevail, and let us all stick to exhaustive
descriptions: many a user in the years (and even centuries to come) will be
most grateful.

Stefan



Dr. Stefan A. Revets, QE II Fellow
Department of Geology & Geophysics
University of Western Australia, Nedlands WA 6907
Tel.  +61 8 9380 1924
Fax. +61 8 9380 1037