[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Wolfgang Lorenz faunaplan at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 20 13:04:17 CST 2012


Paul wrote: "The big question in my mind is whether a specific name (or a
subspecific name) can be an available name."

A "specific name" is the "second name in a binomen and in a trinomen" (acc.
to ICZN English glossary), which seems to be (almost) equal to the
"epithet" in botany.
While I cannot find "epithet" in the English ICZN glossary, it is there in
the French version: "épithète, s.f. Nom spécifique ou nom subspécifique
dans un nom du niveau espèce. [Angl.: species-group name]".
Why such differences in English and French ICZN versions???

Only in combination with a genus name, such an epithet can be an available
species-group name in zoology, I thought. Or, did I misunderstand the
question?

Greetings,
Wolfgang
-----------------------------
Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany

2012/2/20 Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>

> Wait a minute. There is a sequence of terms involved in botany:
> A name must be effectively published, then checked to see if it is
> valid, and then legitimate in breaking no rules, and them correct in
> that "Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position,
> and rank can bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in
> accordance with the Rules, except in specified cases. (Principle IV).
>
> So we are talking about one name per recognized taxon. What that name is
> can be approached nomenclaturally by seeing which homotypic or
> heterotypic synonym is earliest for the entity at that rank, plus
> legitimately published. Sometimes informatics questions can be solved
> with the Rules, which is nice.
>
> In cases where the rules don't fix a problem, we can use the well-known
> philosophical idea that if you phrase the question right, an idea of the
> answer presents itself. Suppose two authorities have a different idea of
> what rank or in which genus a species should be. Since we are
> scientists, we should be able to check the methods the authorities used
> to analyze the situation. Maybe they didn't use any analytic methods, in
> which case the study is not replicable and it isn't science; well then
> that is when a user selects a name subjectively from silly taxonomy. Not
> good.
>
> But most of the time taxonomists use some kind of method, or heuristics,
> or system, and so on, no matter how informal or perfunctory. So a user
> can ask, what was this system and are the studies replicable? Did
> different authors sample the same group? Were the samples big enough? If
> not big enough and analogy was used, what analogy? What heuristic or
> species concept or genus concept was used to sort groups? Surely if
> taxonomists are really scientists, their methods are amenable to
> formalization and replication from the same sampled data set. Such
> methods are not limited to only phenetics or only phylogenetics, but
> some combination of methods that works to cluster specimens into optimal
> groups that reflect both obvious similarity and less obvious evolution.
>
> Again, I think, yes, many taxa are well known as distinct at some level
> and are generally agreed upon. But for a myriad taxa, we have little
> data, little access to well-sampled material, few funds or students or
> time to do the biosystematics needed to truly understand these taxa.
> Clear circumscriptions agreed upon by most are possible, in my opinion.
> Asking taxonomists for clear circumscriptions agreed upon most right now
> this instant is more like "Hurry up now, we are waiting, waiting,
> waiting."
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Curtis Clark
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:13 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names
>
> On 2/19/2012 7:52 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> > if "valid" means the same in botany as it does in zoology,
> It doesn't; it means "published according to the rules". The botanical
> equivalent of the zoological "valid" is "correct".
>
> --
> Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
> After 2012-01-02:
> Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
> Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list