[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Wolfgang Lorenz faunaplan at googlemail.com
Thu Feb 23 04:13:14 CST 2012

isn't it the ICZN glossary (page 110) that is most confusing?:
"species-group name. A specific name or a subspecific name"
"specific name. The second name in a binomen and in a trinomen" [i.e.,
"subspecific name. The third name in a trinomen" [i.e,.epithet]

Shouldn't it be something like:
'species-group name. The combination of two or three names, the first being
the generic name followed by one or two epithets. A species-group name can
be interpolated by a subgeneric name (in round brackets) or a word
indicating the rank (e.g., "subspec.").'

Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany

2012/2/23 Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>

> From: "Adam Cotton" <adamcot at cscoms.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:01 PM
> > It seems to me that the misunderstanding here is actually about how the
> > word "available" is applied under the ICZN Code.
> >
> > The important point here is that the Code governs 3 levels of
> > nomenclature, *Family Group*, *Genus Group* and *Species Group*
> > names as SEPARATE entities. The individual names in each group
> > are either available or unavailable depending on whether they comply
> > with the various relevant articles of the Code.
> >
> > Under the Zoological Code the word "available" is not applied to a
> > combination of genus + species but to the individual (single word) names.
> > The VALID name of a species consists of the oldest available genus and
> > species name applicable to the taxon.
> >
> > Subspecies, Subgenus, Tribe names etc all fall into one of the 3 groups
> > governed by the Code (for example, a Subspecies name is part of the
> > Species Group names, a Tribe name is part of the Family Group). What
> > level these names are treated at is a taxonomic decision NOT governed
> > by the Code, so a taxonomist can treat a Subspecies name as a species
> > if he believes this to be the case. In separating subspecies into (say)
> > two species the VALID name for each species is the oldest
> > AVAILABLE Species Group name among the taxa considered within
> > each species.
> >
> > Junior synonyms are still available names and can become the valid name
> if
> > the previously valid name is actually shown to be unavailable (usually
> due
> > to homonymy or a non-Code compliant original description, such as at
> > infrasubspecific level). This is particularly important for homonymy, as
> > all available names are considered for homonymy, as are some names that
> > are actually unavailable under the Code, but still available only for the
> > purposes of homonymy.
> >
> > I hope this clarifies things.
> ***
> Yes, the zoological Code may be said to govern three (or four) separate
> nomenclatural universes, but this is not what causes the confusion, at
> least
> not directly.
> In the family group the publication of any new scientific name also makes
> available the corresponding scientific names in all the other ranks. This
> is not a problem (although it is a big difference with how things are
> arranged under the botanical Code).
> In the genus group the publication of any new scientific name also makes
> available the corresponding scientific name in the other rank. Again, this
> is not a problem (although, again, it is a big difference with how things
> are arranged under the botanical Code).
> However, 46.1 is problematical. It is clear that this has been drafted in
> parallel to the provisions on the other two groups, but it is very hard to
> read. The last part of the sentence speaks of nominal taxa, which have
> come into existence by the publication of the first name. The Glossary
> is quite clear about nominal taxa and what constitutes their scientific
> (and available) name: it explicitly points out Homo sapiens as the
> available
> name of a nominal taxon at the species level. So, once Homo sapiens has
> been published the name Homo sapiens sapiens also exists. So far so good.
> The first part of 46.1 appears to be a mine field. Clearly Homo sapiens
> is established only as the scientific name of a species, not as the name
> of a subspecies, nor can it be the name of subspecies. On the other
> hand, the entry on "establish" in the Glossary seems to be very sure
> that only names of nominal taxa (uninominal, binominal, or trinominal)
> can be established (why else have a separate term, otherwise it would
> just be equivalent to "to make available"). So, I am not getting
> anywhere in reading this.
> I am guessing that the intent of the first part of 46.1 is something like:
>   A species-group name made available as part of a name of a taxon
>   at either rank in the species group is thereby simultaneously made
>   available, by the same author, for use as part of the scientific name
>   of a nominal taxon at the other rank in the group;
> However, that is not what it says ...
> Paul
> P.S. the Glossary is pretty clear that only a binomen can be the valid
> name of a species (and this is borne out by the body of the Code).
> _______________________________________________
> 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