[Taxacom] two names online published - one new species

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Jan 24 14:16:08 CST 2016


No offence, but your comments suggest to me that you fail to grasp what is perhaps the most fundamental principle of zoological nomenclature, namely the distinction between publication and valid publication. New names do not necessarily date (for the purposes of priority and/or homonymy) from their date of publication. They date from their date of valid publication, which may not be the same. This is why we have such things as unavailable names. They are published names, but not validly published names. Rich was talking about the date of valid publication. The glossary only defines date of publication.



On Sun, 24/1/16, Laurent Raty <l.raty at skynet.be> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] two names online published - one new species
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Sunday, 24 January, 2016, 9:12 PM
 Hi Stephen,
 On 01/23/2016 09:54 PM,
 Stephen Thorpe wrote:
 > Laurent,
 > Rich is talking about the date of valid
 publication (=date of availability of the work and any new
 names and/or nomenclatural acts contained within). The Code
 glossary that you quote is rather about date of publication
 simpliciter. These are two different things.
 > Cheers,
 > Stephen
 To my eye, you are still
 trying to twist the text into what you believe 
 is "logical", without offering a
 demonstration that the text allows your 
 Where in the
 Code do you see two different concept of "date of 
 publications"? I see only one, this is the
 date from which the name 
 takes its
 priority, and this must be Richard's #4 unless I
 decide to violate the
 Cheers, L -
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 Celebrating 29 years of
 Taxacom in 2016.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list