The end user is interested in the scientific name of a taxon, and the Glossary of the zoological Code is clear about this aspect. The zoological Code regards specific and subspecific names (jointly: species-group names) as 'names' as well but this is an internal, zoological nomenclatural matter.

What I am confused about here is not the scientific name of a taxon, which the Glossary is clear about. The Glossary also appears to be clear that these scientific names of taxa are available names. So, I can envision the following possibilities: 1) the name of a species, the binomen, is an available name, but the specific name is not an available name 2) the name of a species, the binomen, is an available name, and the specific name is also an available name 3) the name of a species, the binomen, is an available name, but although the specific name is both a name and available, it is not an available name (of course, this would be strange, but no stranger than other things that are in the zoological Code).

and apparently 4) the name of a species, the binomen, is not an available name, but the specific name is an available name?

As to the comparison between botany and zoology, whenever a species-group name can be an available name there is a absolute break down (even if only local, in some cases) between the two. In botany a "validly published name" is always the "scientific name of a taxon"; it is unimaginable that a specific epithet (or any other epithet), by itself, can be a) either a name or b) validly published. This divide is, of course, even bigger because in zoology a specific name may exist even if it never was part of a complete scientific name of a taxon, a binomen (11.9.3.1). This is really, really weird, from a botanical nomenclatural perspective!

Paul

From: "Richard Pyle" <deep...@bishopmuseum.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 8:10 PM Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names

That's not exactly what I said. The availability of a name of a species (the epithet) is independent of the genus with which it is combined, except in the (relatively rare) case of species-group homonymy.

The confusion is not about availability or homonymy. The confusion comes back to my hints over several recent posts that the definition of "a name" is not as consistent throughout the taxonomic community as you seem to suggest. To most botanists, "a name" is a combination. That's fine (binomial nomenclature, and all). But not all zoologists see it this way; especially when applying rules of the Code. While you certainly can make the argument that the full combination is "the name", one can also make an equally legitimate argument that the placement of a species epithet within a genus is an act of taxonomy/classification, not nomenclature. It only bumps into nomenclature (from the perspective of many zoologists) when homonymy is at play.

Note: one part about the zoological code that is confusing is that it uses the word "name" both in the sense of the binomial, and in the sense of the within-group name element.

The glossary definition of the unqualified "name" is not particularly helpful:

name, n. (1) (general) A word, or ordered sequence of words, conventionally used to denote and identify a particular entity (e.g. a person, place, object, concept). (2) Equivalent to scientific name (q.v.). (3) An element of the name of a species-group taxon: see generic name, subgeneric name, specific name, subspecific name.

#1 is almost useless; #3 defines "name" as being the individual elements; and #2 refers to "scientific name":

scientific name Of a taxon: a name that conforms to Article 1, as opposed to a vernacular name. The scientific name of a taxon at any rank above the species group consists of one name; that of a species, two names (a binomen); and that of a subspecies, three names (a trinomen) [Arts. 4 and 5]. A scientific name is not necessarily available.

...which says that a scientific name cosnsists of one, two, or three names (seems a bit circular to me that a name=scientific name; but a scientific name = 1 name, 2 names, or 3 names....)

In any case, many botanists seem to think that the botanical approach (combinations are "the name") is much more stable, sensible, and logical. Funnily enough, many zoologists feel the same way about the zoological approach. The naïve taxonomists make the mistake of thinking that the "other guys" are being naïve (somewhat ironic). But the people who really think about and understand both approaches, realize that they are both right, and they are both wrong, to about equal degrees. Proof of this is that both approaches have been about equally successful, and equally problematic, for the last couple of centuries.

I suspect that you are probably right about that.

I would tend to agree with that statement, although "not at all" might be a bit strong. I would replace it with "...and in some cases, much less so."

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 Taxa...@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 Taxa...@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