[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Kim van der Linde kim at kimvdlinde.com
Thu Feb 23 05:43:34 CST 2012


I always confuse the species-group name as used by the ICZN with 
species-group names as an informal taxonomic rank used to make 
subdivisions within genera by grouping species in species groups and 
species subgroups. I wish the confusing non-group species-group name 
would be replaced by a clearer term that indicates that it is the 
species specific part of a species name.

Kim

On 2/23/2012 6:31 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes wrote:
> 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
> these.
>
> Francisco
>
>> 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.,
>> epithet]
>> "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
>> -----------------------------
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> Francisco Welter-Schultes
> Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
> Phone +49 551 395536
> http://www.animalbase.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com




More information about the Taxacom mailing list