Allen Aigen wrote,
> If a valid name is reduced to a SUBJECTIVE junior synonym in a proper
publication, is it no longer a valid name?
> Does it need to have a formal re-review, placing it back as a valid
species before it can be considered valid?

Hi, Allen. Essentially yes and yes, but that's why the ICZN uses two terms:
"valid name" meaning "correct name", and "available name" meaning "name that
was published correctly and may someday be reinterpreted as the correct
name". Once a name is published, there isn't any easy way to get rid of it,
although in a few conspicuously difficult cases, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has placed a name (or occasionally a
whole publication) on a sort of blacklist, the Official Index. Four of them
actually, one each for rejected publications, families, genera, and species.
Confusingly, the ICZN also has a set of Official Lists of names and
publications that they issued Opinions on and considered valid.

It used to be that an author puzzling through a really impossible taxonomic
snarl, one whose resolution required setting aside the usual rules, would
send a formal petition to the International Commission for them to rule on.
The petition would be published, generally in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, and other people would have six months to comment on the
proposal. Then the Commission would make the decision and publish an
Opinion. Today, the process is still in effect, but the latest edition of
the ICZN streamlines the procedures in some common cases.

For example, it often happens that a long-forgotten but valid name turns up
in the old literature. Finding an older but forgotten senior synonym for a
common species is unwelcome and we'll never know many people would just turn
the page and never mention it again. (Anybody want to come forth?) Another,
somewhat less common conundrum is finding that the holotype of a species
"doesn't belong to the species," that is, every specimen other than the type
has been misidentified! In cases like these, strict application of the Rules
would lead to chaos. Much better to declare the old, forgotten name or
holotype to be irrelevant, but this can't be done lightly. The Code now
permits a forgotten name to be rejected in print by an author, as long as
the name has not been used for a specific number of years, AND the new name
HAS been used at least a minimum number of times by different authors. (I'd
give you the exact numbers but don't have a copy of the latest edition at
hand.)

The Code also encourages organizations (not individuals, to encourage
objectivity) to compile lists of recognized taxa and published works for
particular animal groups and time periods. If, after international review, a
list is accepted by the Commission, then any forgotten works or names not on
the list will no be longer available, solving several problems rather
neatly. Traditionalists may well be dismayed by this idea, but as long as
the search is honest and reasonably thorough, I could support it.

Cheers,
Andy

Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama