[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Thu Feb 23 07:51:39 CST 2012


"Species" is a concept, this is a taxonomical term. We need a term for the
name for such a concept, for a nomenclatural term, to be widely understood
not only by insiders.

Francisco

> 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
>
>
>


Francisco Welter-Schultes
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen
Phone +49 551 395536
http://www.animalbase.org





More information about the Taxacom mailing list