Why Caucasilacerta Harris, Arnold et Thomas, 1998 is a nomen nudum?

Abstract

Caucasilacerta Harris, Arnold et Thomas, 1998 has been considered as a nomen nudum for the last 18 years. The main reason for this was the lack of a diagnosis or reference to it. Now, some authors argue that a paragraph in the same paper could be a valid diagnosis and thus Caucasilacerta might be an available valid name. In the present manuscript I demonstrate that Caucasilacerta is a nomen nudum by: a) the lack of diagnosis or reference to it accompanying (sic! mandatory in the ICZN) to the new name; b) the alleged diagnosis (fide Busack et al., 2016) is 102 lines away (two pages, including a figure and its legend) and there is not a reference to it accompanying the new name; and c) the subject of the alleged diagnosis are «the Rock-dwelling lacertids in the Caucasus» (sic.!), different from the group to which the new name supposedly refers to, the «L. saxicola group» (sic!). A relationship between both names that can only be ascertained by a specialist in the group and the concerned geographic area. As a result of that, Caucasilacerta is a nomen nudum, unavailable, and thus it is not even a Junior Synonym of Darevskia Arribas, 1997.