[Taxacom] Authorities for trinomials

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Fri Aug 25 11:50:40 CDT 2006


Well, invalid names exist, in the same way that vernacular names exist and
geographical names and personal names. That is, the Code does recognize
their existence, in a general, peripheral way.

However, none of the rules in the Code apply to such names. The rules apply
only to validly published names. Only validly published names are part of
the "system of botanical nomenclature", thus are "scientific names" (in the
sense of the Preamble and Principles) or "names" (in the sense of Art 6.3).
This is quite fundamental to understanding the Code.

Best, Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Jensen" <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
To: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Authorities for trinomials


> 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