[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Frank.Krell at dmns.org Frank.Krell at dmns.org
Thu Feb 23 12:04:35 CST 2012


Well, Drosophila melanogaster (or Sophophora melanogaster) IS the species name.
melanogaster is the specific name

I see no advantage to re-define what is even used in common language.

Frank


Dr Frank T. Krell 
Curator of Entomology 
Commissioner, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Chair, ICZN ZooBank Committee
Department of Zoology 
Denver Museum of Nature & Science 
2001 Colorado Boulevard 
Denver, CO 80205-5798 USA 
Frank.Krell at dmns.org 
Phone: (+1) (303) 370-8244 
Fax: (+1) (303) 331-6492 
http://www.dmns.org/science/museum-scientists/frank-krell
lab page: http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab

Upcoming: Combined Annual Meeting of the Lepidopterist's Society and the Societas Europaea Lepidopterologica, 23-29 July 2012, Denver Museum of Nature & Science; more info at http://www.dmns.org/krell-lab

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science aspires to create a community of critical thinkers who understand the lessons of the past and act as responsible stewards of the future.



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kim van der Linde
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:13 AM
To: Francisco Welter-Schultes
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names

What about:
Family name: Drosophilidae
Genus name: Sophophora
Species name: melanogaster
Binomial name: Sophophora melanogaster

As straight as an arrow.

Yes, I know, in common language, the binomial name is given as the 
species name. However, that is not a problem for generic usage by lay 
people who are not into the intricacies, while experts can easily 
distinguish between species name and binomial name for clarity.

Kim

On 2/23/2012 8:51 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes 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
>

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com

_______________________________________________

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