[Taxacom] Authorities for trinomials
rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Fri Aug 25 14:32:18 CDT 2006
I agree that the code has no rules with respect to the use of invalid
names with one exception - the Code is what allows us to determine if a
name is valid or not. You're right - once a name is determined to be
invalid, the Code essentially ignores it.
Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary’s College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
> 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.
>> 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
>>> validly published. If it is not validly published it does not exist (to
>>> 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
>>> ----- 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
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
More information about the Taxacom