[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Dr Brian Taylor dr.brian.taylor at ntlworld.com
Thu Feb 23 10:07:21 CST 2012


"We need" that sounds very political, like Mr Cameron, the British PM,
Cameron who insists we need to reform the NHS.  I am sorry but what we need
is for species to mean species.  That is, in the English adage, to "Call a
spade a spade".

Brian is 


On 23/02/2012 13:51, "Francisco Welter-Schultes" <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:

> "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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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