[Taxacom] Authorities for trinomials

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Fri Aug 25 05:55:10 CDT 2006

You have lost me completely. As Art 6.3 states a name in the ICBN must be
validly published. If it is not validly published it does not exist (to the
Code): valid publication is a minimum requirement.  Strictly speaking there can be no such thing as an "invalid name" as this is a contradictio-in-terminis. Certainly a name not validly published (an "invalid name") cannot be conserved: it does not exist in the first place.

Art 53.1 does not contradict Art 6.3 in any way. However, once upon a time Art 53.1 was changed, so that it is no longer true that any later homonym is illegitimate, which is confusing enough all by itself.

On the whole, the ICBN is quite logical, but this logic applies in its own separate universe. I have long since stopped believing that the ICBN is easy to understand: it takes a great deal of work to become familiar with it.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
To: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>; "taxacom"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 12:18 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Authorities for trinomials

Yes, the binomial Aus bus published last is invalid. It remains a
homonym, however, and placing authority names after the first two words
of a trinomial is commonly done to distinguish WHICH binomial the
infraspecies refers to.

I assert this is superfluous, because not a nomenclatural but a
taxonomic problem.

Homonyms may not be names (Art. 6.3) but may be conserved (14.9) over
earlier homonyms and thus become a name. Note that Art. 53.1 seems to
contradict 6.3, such that we have illegitimate names that are not names.
Why did I start this thread? Nomenclature is not necessarily logical but
is law-based, and the arguments are twisty-turny . . .


Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

More information about the Taxacom mailing list