[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

Dr.B.J.Tindall bti at dsmz.de
Sat Feb 25 02:31:14 CST 2012

Reality is that you won't stop it. Bacteriology uses the term "validly  
published" in connection with a name. This mutates to "validly  
published species", "validly published description", then on to "valid  
species" and "valid description". None of which are used in our Code.  
Given the current use of the term "valid" (valid name) in zoology the  
impression often surfaces that because we (bacteriology) have a  
centralised system that we rule on taxonomy, recoding which names are  
"valid" (as in zoology) as opposed to "validly published".


Quoting Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>:

> Hi Bradley,
>> This sub-thread about what to call the "parts" of a taxon name highlights
> yet
>> another confusing disconnect between the languages of botany and zoology.
>> I spend part of my time working on biodiversity informatics projects
> involving
>> both botanists and zoologists. You would not believe the unproductive
>> coding errors this little difference in terminology has caused.
> Actually....yes I would.  I think it was at the TDWG meeting in Christchurch
> when a bunch of us data nerds from both the zoology camp and botany camp got
> together in a room to hammer out Taxon Name stuff, and it was mind-boggling
> how difficult the conversation was due to these subtle but critical
> differences in vocabulary between the disciplines. If even the
> taxonomy-based data nerds had so much trouble communicating with each other,
> you can imagine how hard it was to explain all this stuff to a
> non-taxonomist coder.
> I've always wanted to build a dictionary of unnecessarily confusing terms in
> our domain.  The obvious ones are "species", "name", "valid", etc.  But once
> you throw in the IT domain, a whole new suite of confusing & homonymous
> terms emerge ("Class", "Type", "Natural Key", "Identification", etc.)
>> I know the ICBN and ICZN are officially independent, but there are times
>> when I think it would benefit everyone to standardize at least some of our
>> terminology.
> Indeed:
> http://www.bionomenclature.net/
> And, in particular:
> http://www.bionomenclature.net/documents/NOMGLOSS_2010_FINAL.pdf
> Table 1, on pp. 17-18, is particularly helpful.
> Aloha,
> Rich
> This message is only intended for the addressee named above.  Its  
> contents may be privileged or otherwise protected.  Any unauthorized  
> use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is  
> prohibited.  If you have received this message by mistake, please  
> notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call.   
> Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily  
> represent the views of the Bishop Museum.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Leibniz-Institut DSMZ-Deutsche Sammlung von
Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH
Inhoffenstra├če 7B
38124 Braunschweig
Tel. ++49 531-2616-224
Fax  ++49 531-2616-418
Director: Prof. Dr. J. Overmann
Local court: Braunschweig HRB 2570
Chairman of the management board: MR Dr. Axel Kollatschny

DSMZ - A member of the Leibniz Association (WGL)

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list