Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:02:38 +0200 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|