[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Mon Feb 20 05:07:45 CST 2012

From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 10:32 AM

>> > in other words:
>> >"valid" in botany means "available" in zoology
>> >"valid" in zoology means "correct" in botany
>> ***
>> Not even close. It should be fairly safe to say:
>> * a "validly published name" in botany is an "available name"
>> in zoology
>> * a "valid name" in zoology is a "correct name" in botany
> I would say Stephen was certainly "close"; if not spot-on.

Yeah, sure
Zoology's "this work is available" can be translated into
botany's "this work is valid" and
zoology's "this typification is available" can be translated into
botany's "this typification is valid" and
zoology's "this choice is valid" can be translated into
botany's "this choice is correct" and
botany's "this is the correct spelling" can be translated into
zoology's "this is the valid spelling".

You could try, but although there is a fair chance that you
would not be misunderstood, any editor worth his salt would
reach for his red pencil (shaking his head at this clumsiness).
* * *

>> but there is a considerable uncertainty as I cannot quite make out what 
>> an "available name" is in the zoological Code.
> It's *almost* the same as a "validly published" in the botanical sense, 
> but there are reasons other than invalid publication that may render a
> zoological name unavailable.

The big question in my mind is whether a specific name (or a
subspecific name) can be an available name. It appears possible
to argue this both ways, depending what part of the zoological Code
one uses. I remain unsure (except that thinking about it gives me
a headache).


More information about the Taxacom mailing list