[Taxacom] validation of taxon names
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Mon Feb 20 11:07:51 CST 2012
> Yeah, sure
> Zoology's "this work is available" can be translated into botany's "this
> valid" and zoology's "this typification is available" can be translated
> botany's "this typification is valid" and zoology's "this choice is valid"
> translated into botany's "this choice is correct" and botany's "this is
> correct spelling" can be translated into zoology's "this is the valid
> 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).
> * * *
Fair enough, but the characterization as "Not even close" seemed a bit
> 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
> depending what part of the zoological Code one uses. I remain unsure
> (except that thinking about it gives me a headache).
Of course it can! But we would say "a species-group name". And yes, the
availability applies to the epithet, not the combination (the exception
being secondary homonymy).
This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
More information about the Taxacom