|60 earlier messages|
|Roderic Page||Feb 19, 2012 8:09 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 19, 2012 8:58 am|
|Curtis Clark||Feb 19, 2012 8:59 am|
|Curtis Clark||Feb 19, 2012 9:49 am|
|Frederick W. Schueler||Feb 19, 2012 10:29 am|
|Richard Pyle||Feb 19, 2012 12:14 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 12:45 pm|
|Bob Mesibov||Feb 19, 2012 2:23 pm|
|Walker, Ken||Feb 19, 2012 2:36 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 2:38 pm|
|Bob Mesibov||Feb 19, 2012 2:54 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 2:56 pm|
|Walker, Ken||Feb 19, 2012 3:08 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 4:05 pm|
|Bob Mesibov||Feb 19, 2012 4:07 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 4:38 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 5:09 pm|
|Curtis Clark||Feb 19, 2012 5:18 pm|
|Bob Mesibov||Feb 19, 2012 5:33 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 5:50 pm|
|Kenneth Kinman||Feb 19, 2012 7:27 pm|
|Weakley, Alan||Feb 19, 2012 7:47 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 7:50 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 7:52 pm|
|Curtis Clark||Feb 19, 2012 8:13 pm|
|Stephen Thorpe||Feb 19, 2012 8:22 pm|
|Dr.B.J.Tindall||Feb 19, 2012 11:08 pm|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 19, 2012 11:52 pm|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 19, 2012 11:56 pm|
|Richard Pyle||Feb 20, 2012 1:02 am|
|Richard Pyle||Feb 20, 2012 1:24 am|
|Richard Pyle||Feb 20, 2012 1:27 am|
|Richard Pyle||Feb 20, 2012 1:32 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 20, 2012 3:07 am|
|Curtis Clark||Feb 20, 2012 7:28 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 20, 2012 8:55 am|
|Richard Pyle||Feb 20, 2012 9:07 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 20, 2012 9:40 am|
|Richard Zander||Feb 20, 2012 10:35 am|
|Wolfgang Lorenz||Feb 20, 2012 11:03 am|
|Richard Pyle||Feb 20, 2012 11:09 am|
|David Campbell||Feb 20, 2012 11:41 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 21, 2012 1:03 am|
|Richard Pyle||Feb 21, 2012 8:26 am|
|Francisco Welter-Schultes||Feb 21, 2012 8:48 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 22, 2012 12:30 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 22, 2012 12:44 am|
|Adam Cotton||Feb 22, 2012 3:00 am|
|Francisco Welter-Schultes||Feb 22, 2012 3:11 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 23, 2012 12:27 am|
|Wolfgang Lorenz||Feb 23, 2012 2:12 am|
|Francisco Welter-Schultes||Feb 23, 2012 3:31 am|
|Kim van der Linde||Feb 23, 2012 3:43 am|
|Francisco Welter-Schultes||Feb 23, 2012 4:02 am|
|Dr Brian Taylor||Feb 23, 2012 4:29 am|
|Francisco Welter-Schultes||Feb 23, 2012 5:51 am|
|Kim van der Linde||Feb 23, 2012 6:12 am|
|Dr Brian Taylor||Feb 23, 2012 8:06 am|
|Fran...@dmns.org||Feb 23, 2012 10:04 am|
|Richard Zander||Feb 23, 2012 10:21 am|
|Wolfgang Lorenz||Feb 23, 2012 10:50 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 24, 2012 12:28 am|
|Bradley Boyle||Feb 24, 2012 11:19 am|
|Richard Pyle||Feb 24, 2012 11:33 am|
|Fran...@dmns.org||Feb 24, 2012 12:08 pm|
|Dr.B.J.Tindall||Feb 25, 2012 12:30 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 25, 2012 12:33 am|
|Paul van Rijckevorsel||Feb 25, 2012 12:36 am|
|Francisco Welter-Schultes||Feb 25, 2012 4:18 am|
|Michael Schmitt||Feb 27, 2012 1:55 am|
|Subject:||Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names|
|From:||Paul van Rijckevorsel (dipt...@freeler.nl)|
|Date:||Feb 23, 2012 12:27:22 am|
From: "Adam Cotton" <adam...@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 ...
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 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
(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
your search terms here