infraspecific validity

Curtis Clark jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU
Mon Jan 8 13:44:44 CST 1996

At 01:44 PM 1/8/96 -0700, Joe Laferriere wrote:
>There is a difference between "invalid" names and "illegitimate" ones.

Oops!  Yes, I know the distinction, I just get confused sometimes when I
read zoological nomenclature, where "valid" means something different.

>The first two words of an infraspecific name must correspond to a valid
>specific name, but do not necessarily have to be a legitimate name. A
>valid name is one which has been published with a description (in Latin
>if after 1935) plus a type designation (if after the date that rule went
>into effect; I think it was 1958). A name can can thus be valid but still
>be an illegitimate homonym or synonym. Thus the "arizonica" epithet you
>cite above would still be valid and have priority status. If your
>examination of types indicates that it does not belong to the legitimate
>Ivieia neocalifornica, you could still use the epithet  as
>Ivieia laferrierei subsp. arizonica (Laferr.) C. Clark,
>provided you have already published I. laferrierei as a valid species name.

But back to my original question:  Assuming that Ivieia neocalifornica Clark
were invalid (since I guess the rules state only that an infraspecific must
be in a valid species), the bibliographic issue remains.

Curtis Clark
Biological Sciences Department                     Voice: (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona    FAX:   (909) 869-4396
Pomona CA 91768-4032                               jcclark at

More information about the Taxacom mailing list