[Taxacom] Electronic publication

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Jan 13 19:45:48 CST 2017

> In other words, if you see a problem in the Code, ignore it!

Huh?  I don't follow.

If you see a problem in the Code, discuss it with colleagues (check).  If it's not easily resolved, reported it to the community (check). If it's not easily answered, there will be a horrific, raging, epic debate (check).  If ultimately a clear consensus is reached, then good (NOT check).  If an ambiguity in the Code is revealed or spotlighted, then it will be added to the list of things to fix in the next edition (check).

So, after we endure that process (as we have in this case), and we have discovered an ambiguity in the Code (as we have in this case), then we have a couple of options as a community:
1) Everyone interprets the Code the way they want, so we have inconsistency on how different taxonomists will treat the availability of certain names.
2) Acknowledge the ambiguity, and that it will be added to the list of things to address formally, and figure out which alternate interpretation would result in the most nomenclatural stability in the interim.

My hope is that in this particular case, we can shift towards option #2, to try to establish some degree of consistency in how to interpret an ambiguous part of the Code until the ambiguity is formally addressed (e.g., via a Declaration, or the next Edition).

I'm under no illusion that we have actually achieved this; but I am perplexed by your suggestion that someone (certainly not me) suggests that when a problem is discovered in the Code, we should "ignore it".


More information about the Taxacom mailing list