[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Dr Brian Taylor dr.brian.taylor at ntlworld.com
Thu Feb 23 06:29:46 CST 2012


Francisco et al,

That might be fine but in the world of myrmecologists (wrongly I think) the
species-group pops up as a "modern" version of the subgenus.

What is wrong with the simple term species which I have always thought,
since VIth Form school in 1957, to be the genus name plus the species name?

Too much jargon and not enough simple English.

Brian Taylor


On 23/02/2012 11:31, "Francisco Welter-Schultes" <fwelter at gwdg.de> 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






More information about the Taxacom mailing list