[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Wolfgang Lorenz faunaplan at googlemail.com
Thu Feb 23 12:50:38 CST 2012


Richard Zander wrote: "We botanists use "specific epithet" for the last
word of the binomen. A species name is a binomen."

and this is what I think zoologists should do in the next Code...

The Zoological Code is mainly ruling on 3 categories of names:
1) "Family-group nominal taxa and their names" Chapter 8
2) "Genus-group nominal taxa and their names" Chapter 9
3) "Species-group nominal taxa and their names" Chapter 10

The name of a species-group nominal taxon is a bi- or trinomen.
But the Glossary says a species-group name is the epithet alone...
Logic???

Wolfgang
-----------------------------
Wolfgang Lorenz, Tutzing, Germany


2012/2/23 Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>

> We botanists use "specific epithet" for the last word of the binomen. A
> species name is a binomen.
>
> 
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:
> taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Frank.Krell at dmns.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:05 PM
> To: kim at kimvdlinde.com; fwelter at gwdg.de
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list