When (animal) type genus is a subgenus

Ken Kinman kinman at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Apr 25 23:22:31 CDT 2001

      I agree with the wisdom of this.  Junior synonyms, which are also a
matter of taxonomic opinion, have been known to be taken back out of
synonymy (so that provision makes sense).
     When I spoke of an invalid name, I was thinking more of a generic name
that had been placed on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Names.
Offhand I don't recall if there is a specific provision which automatically
rejects any family level taxon name which is based on such a formally
rejected generic name.  I would hope that there is, but I'm not sure.
                   ------Cheers, Ken
>From: Barry Roth <barry_roth at yahoo.com>
>To: Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>, TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: When (animal) type genus is a subgenus
>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
>Thank you, Ken.  Article 40 of the new Code deals with the other situation
>you mention and oddly, perhaps, provides that "when the name of a type
>genus of a nominal family-group taxon is considered to be a junior synonym
>of the name of another nominal genus [i.e., when it is not a valid name],
>the family-group name is not to be replaced on that account alone."
>So perhaps we could make the argument that if JUNIOR SYNONYMY of a genus
>name is not enough to sink a family-group name based on it, then subgeneric
>ranking probably is not sufficient, either.  The wisdom of this, I suppose,
>is that genus-level taxonomy (which is likely to be relatively fluid over
>time) does not have a continual, cascading effect on nomenclature at the
>family level.
>Still, I wonder whether there isn't a more directly pertinent article or
>section somewhere in the Code.
>   Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
>Whether the generic name involved is recognized as a full genus or
>subgenus (of another genus) is a matter of taxonomic opinion. Therefore, I
>see no reason that any particular classification regarding it as a subgenus
>(as opposed to a full genus) as being relevant to the validity of the
>name based upon it. If the newest ICZN Code has any provisions that would
>say anything different, I would be very surprised. If the generic name in
>question was invalid, then that would be a whole different matter.
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

More information about the Taxacom mailing list