>Hi all,
>
>I think that the whole discussion on "available" and "valid" is based on
>different interpretations of those words, and the use in a different
>context. Valid is being used both connected to the nouns "species" and
>"name".
>A name is not the same as a species. Therefore we must first find out what
>valid is really, and not what we think it might be.
>
>So let's have a look at the glossary of the code, which defines the word
>valid:
>Valid, a. (validity, n.). Of an available name or a nomenclatural act: one
>that is acceptable under the provisions of the Code and, in the case of a
>name, which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic
>judgement. (Code p. 121).
>
>The rest is in fact plain and simple: A valid name for a taxon has to be:
>1) available [that is meeting the requirements of the code]
>2) the correct name of a taxon, which, in most cases, follows the rules of
>priority [see for exceptions to this strict priority rule earlier
>contributions to this discussion]. Junior synonyms, are therefore not valid
>names, unless at a certain point a taxonomist "decides" that a junior
>subjective synonym (an objective synonym will always remain a synonym as it
>is based on the same holotype specimen) actually represents another species.
>In that case, the first available junior synonym (which at that point is no
>longer a synonym) becomes the valid name for the new species.
>
>Gijs C. Kronenberg

Okay, I concede defeat! It has happened before... I remember the time well.

Therefore I must return to the bad ol' days, when I tawt a valid name
wuz the correct name for current usage. Ah well...

Wish the writers of the ICZN rules knew what "valid" means... they
are abusing the word.
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin, New Zealand
64 (3) 473-8863
<[log in to unmask]>
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh & VW/Toyota van nut
_________________________
I want your sinistral gastropods!
_________________________
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?