Valid description?

Jacques Melot melot at ITN.IS
Fri Nov 8 20:32:23 CST 1996


>I would like to thank all of those who responded to my request for
>opinions on the validity of the name Achrestus chalumeui.
>
>I forgot to mention that the name was of an animal, so received responses
>for both the Botanical & Zoological Code.

c'etait pourtant assez evident (L'Entomologiste...)

>Most (but not all)

dans ce cas il est dommage que les reponses n'aient pas ete envoyees a
TAXACOM! D'autant plus que si vous envoyez ce second message, c'est que la
question semble necessiter un debat.

> gave me the answer I hoped for, that the name is not
>valid, so now I will give my reasons for being uncertain in the first place.
>
>First, there is no type mentioned.  Unfortunately (unbelievably!) this
>has no effect.  The Code does not require a type for a name to be valid.
>
>Second, it is clear Chalumeau did not intend to describe the species.
>
>Third, there are no clear characters mentioned.  Unfortunately, this is
>also true for many validly described species.

cela est difficile a croire (si je comprends bien ce que vous voulez dire
par <<validly described species>>)! D'ailleurs, comment peut-on affirmer
que de tels noms sont valides si les conditions de l'Art. 13 a (i) ne sont
pas remplies? Il nous faudrait des EXEMPLES precis!

>My confusion was because the description could be interpreted to mean
>(paraphrased) "An Achrestus from Martinique that has the color pattern of F.
>camemini".

ceci est un enonce de ce que ces deux bestioles ont en commun, non un
caractere differentiel, en contradiction avec les exigences de l'Art. 13 a
(i) ("a description or definition that states in words characters that are
purported to differentiate the taxon").

>In actuality, this does distinguish the taxon, especially in
>the company of the figure.  In my opinion, the problem with this view is
>that it requires the reader to interpret it this way, rather the author
>actually saying it this way.

je suppose que la figure peut etre utilisee afin d'aider a
l'interpretation, mais elle n'a rien a voir avec le fait que le texte est
acceptable comme diagnose ou non.

>Are we agreed that this is too much of a reach to consider the name
>validated?
>
>Next question. Since we are more or less agreed that the name is invalid,
>what is to stop someone else from coming along and claiming it is, using
>the same sections of the Code that we have used, but slanting them
>differently and then creating synonyms, etc.  Should this name be sent in
>to be added to the list of rejected names in Zoology?  Is there any
>other way to make its rejection truly final?
>
>Mike Ivie

En Botanique au moins, un nom non validement publie n'a aucun statut
nomenclatural. Avant de proposer d'inserer un nom dans la liste des noms
rejetes il est donc necessaire de s'assurer que ce nom est valide,
c'est-a-dire qu'il... existe!

Meilleures salutations,

Jacques Melot, Reykjavik
melot at itn.is




More information about the Taxacom mailing list