prevailing usage clarification

Ron at Ron at
Tue Aug 27 14:16:30 CDT 2002


I said
> >This is no small matter.  3.2 has already told us we need not be
concerned with any names or nomenclatural act before 1758.  23.9.1.1 tells
us we also don't need to be concerned about any name not used as a _valid
name_ from 1900 to date. <<

There was a bad assumption here on my part.  I assumed by the context of
having mentioned (23.9.1.1) that we know we are presenting this within the
context of that section which deals with synonymy and homonymy.  The
technical term for these names is nomen oblitum (forgotten name) - I just
call them dead names.  I also assumed we would know that names between 1758
through 1899 that apply to new taxa just now found in nature (even if dead
museum specimens) which are found to belong to the very old original
descriptions are totally available and in fact ones that may be used if
their organic taxon has now become discovered.   This is to make sure all
know my meaning in the phrase "don't need to be concerned about any name
not used..."   "Any name" had the assumed limitation of [within the
23.9.1.1 context].   So sorry if I misled / misinformed anyone on these two
areas.  Re prevailing usage, all remains as I have stated previously.  It
is just that there are other older names that are indeed available (or can
be made available) but they do not affect prevailing usage.

They pose no threat to prevailing usage as such old names have just never
been asociated with any other named taxon - so synonymy or homonymy are not
a problem.  To this point they are just nomina dubia.  There are several
ways the old names that fall in this category can be dealt with including
being ignored (as nomen dubium) and a new name proposed.  Then we get into
how unavailable names can become available and by what author and date.
Another interesting set of scenarios :-)

Ron Gatrelle




More information about the Taxacom mailing list