You are here
Volume 66 (2009)
This is a reply to the comment by Craig (BZN 66: 271–272) on Case 3458.
I have been following the ongoing debate on Case 3458 (BZN 65: 188–193). I have also had the opportunity to read an unpublished reply (now BZN 66: 349–351) by Robbins & Lamas to Craig’s comment (BZN 66: 271–272) on this case. I disagree with Craig’s interpretations and consider them incorrectly supported according to the meaning of Article 13.1 of the Code.
This comment is sent for the purpose of offering complete support for the conservation of the taxon Lycaena florus and the designation of a (new) neotype for the taxon occasionally known as Lycaena castro.
Dr James A. Scott has presented a very fine, detailed case for this position and I will not attempt to condense, repeat, or elaborate on his statements, but I will state that I completely and wholeheartedly support his position on this matter.
In my opinion Frazier’s proposal is completely unnecessary, because the facts are clear and the rules of the ICZN provide solutions for this situation. I support the arguments presented by Bour & Pritchard (BZN 66: 169–174).
I am writing to you in strong support of Case 3463 to stabilise the name of the Aldabra tortoise. During my time as a research fellow at the Natural History Museum (London) I conducted phylogenetic and population genetic analyses of both living and museum material from the Seychelles, including Aldabra. At the time the nomenclatural instability was a major issue, for scientific understanding of the evolutionary history of these tortoises but more importantly for conservation of surviving populations.