unpublished names

Richard Pyle deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG
Tue Oct 21 12:18:23 CDT 2003

> We have here a situation where there are conflicting needs. At one
> extreme, we have people who simply use taxonomic information, and -
> in general - aren't going to care about nomina nuda and the like, and
> will simply wish to know things like (1) what the present accepted
> name is for taxon X (2) what the presently accepted sub-taxa are
> contained in higher taxon Y (e.g., checklists, catalogs, authority
> files).

While this group of users may not care about nomina nuda and the like per
se, they stand to benefit from having such names included and mapped in a

Quoting Chris' message:
"...many users do not know what are available names, etc., they only know
that they have an apparent scientific name and they want to know what is the
proper / correct / valid name for the organism that is being written about,

So, in the case where a lay user encounters what seems to be an apparent
scientific name in some reference somewhere, and goes to look that name up
on some database or index, it would be helpful to said lay user if the index
had tracked the name and mapped it to a different (available/correct) name,
even if the original name was a nominum nudum (or the like).

There are limits to this logic, of course.  Harking back to another
discussion on another list: to a layperson (or even a taxonomist), the
italicized text strings "Speedibus rex" and "Apetitius giganticus" certainly
represent "apparent scientific names", but their inclusion in taxonomic
databases probably would not (indeed, probably *should* not) be expected.


Richard L. Pyle
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org

More information about the Taxacom mailing list