[Taxacom] validation of taxon names
fwelter at gwdg.de
Thu Feb 23 05:31:33 CST 2012
The definition of the species-group name in the Glossary is sufficiently
clear, I think. It refers to the second name in a genus-species
combination, and to the third name in a genus-species-subspecies
combination. It is not the combination. The combination is called species
name and subspecies name. Your proposed definition could be used for
> 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
> 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
>> > 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)
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > the previously valid name is actually shown to be unavailable (usually
>> > to homonymy or a non-Code compliant original description, such as at
>> > infrasubspecific level). This is particularly important for homonymy,
>> > all available names are considered for homonymy, as are some names
>> > are actually unavailable under the Code, but still available only for
>> > 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
>> not directly.
>> In the family group the publication of any new scientific name also
>> available the corresponding scientific names in all the other ranks.
>> 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,
>> is not a problem (although, again, it is a big difference with how
>> are arranged under the botanical Code).
>> However, 46.1 is problematical. It is clear that this has been drafted
>> parallel to the provisions on the other two groups, but it is very hard
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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 ...
>> 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
>> 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
> 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
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
Phone +49 551 395536
More information about the Taxacom