Hi everyone. I recently received and have to determine what to do with the following paper (editor’s note, for background, see this recent post):
As an administrator and bureaucrat at Wikispecies I have to decide how to proceed with this group of reptiles. I have made a tentative start here but please realize this is a simple start easily undone.
I recall the last time this came up, in 2012. I joined the discussion at the time. However, despite my comments at the time, I did not follow splitting the genus up then. In the end, my view is for stability and consensus. By stability, I mean the actual meaning of stability under the ICZN code, which does not apply here. But consensus could.
Why is this paper different? Well, first up, last time it was a PhyloCode paper and as such is relatively easy to ignore, as it does not submit to the rules of nomenclature. However, this time it is an ICZN compliant paper so you cannot ignore it. As stated many times, names are to considered as valid on publication or refuted–there is no ignore. So the above paper may be refuted, but not ignored.
Last time, many argued that the genus is monophyletic. This is not really an argument against splitting. It’s a position statement. The order Testudines is also monophyletic, should every turtle species (275 living species) all go back into the genus Testudo? The current genera or lack of them present are only a reference to the history of research. It does not mean it is the most suitable arrangement.
More importantly is diagnosibility. Can the new proposed genera and their inherent species be adequately diagnosed? This is a more important question.
Note that a genus with some 500 species is generally considered too big. Many writers over the years have deemed between 100-200 species about the maximum size wanted. However, this does still need to address the previous point on diagnosibility.
Another point people brought up last time was stability. Well, stability actually refers to the mononomial and whether a name can be replaced by a forgotten name. It is used as a reason to reverse priority. This is the code purpose of stability. Note that the combination first up does not have to be stable, and second is a taxonomic decision, not a nomenclatural one. Hence outside the code.
So what I am after: Basically I want to see through any commentary if the people who work on anole’s are likely to use this new nomenclature. If they are, I will adopt it at Wikispecies. That will require the moving and reorganisation of some 550 pages. I do not take that on lightly. Hence I am asking you, the people who work on anoles, first. My decision will be based on the answers I get. I do not work on anoles. I am a turtle and tortoise specialist. But I do have a job to do at Wikispecies.
For your information, I have discussed this briefly with Peter Uetz at Reptile Database also. He also was not sure what to do, but remembered the last time it came up here. So I am reaching out to all of you on this issue. I am after consensus, not stability. As I said, stability does not apply here. But I will say that to reject the nomenclatural proposals of Nicholson et al. (2018) does require a refutation. They have presented to science in good faith in a very good journal, Zootaxa. We cannot ignore this and as a taxonomist, I will not.
In advance, I thank everyone for their comments. I think this issue needs to be openly debated.