[Taxacom] Authorities for trinomials

Richard Jensen rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Fri Aug 25 09:17:00 CDT 2006


Paul, I think you are playing semantic games. Of course invalid names 
exist - if they didn't exist, the code would make no reference to, e.g., 
a nomen nudum. The very fact that the code specifies what is a valid 
name is clear evidence of the existence of invalid names.

Cheers,

Dick J

Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary’s College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674



Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> 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.
> PvR
>
>
> ----- 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 . . .
>
> R.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>   


_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom




More information about the Taxacom mailing list