Mark Bethke (the indomitable Ferreter) wrote,
>Andrew , you wrote the following, "A species is what a taxonomist says
it is" as long as everyone else agrees with that taxonomist later."
my questions is this , first , how do you get anyone to agree as even the
best books are argued constantly.
 
Well, the saying is an old one and it's usually accompanied by a smile. :-)
 It's true that no two taxonomists can agree 100 percent of the time, but
it's surprising how often they do agree if they have both reviewed the same
evidence. And how often careful observers agree whether tribal or
college-educated, as Emilio pointed out quite correctly. The important
thing is to get people to look at the physical evidence rather than getting
bogged down in the words.
 
>second, if a taxonomy study shows a species to be nothing more then a
color
form is this still a valid species ?
BUT a color form could actually show a difference in taxonomy , case in
point the albinistic form of trachycardium egmontianum that occurs commonly
in a few sand flats in south west Florida , the albino verses "normal"
species is about 2-1 normal being the greater number , should these be
considered a valid subspecies?
 
I cheerfully admit a lack of experience with Trachycardium egmontianum, and
invite other Conchlers to tackle this example. As to the broader question,
I'm not sure what is being asked exactly, but I'll try. We paleontologists
don't usually deal with color forms!
 
An "available name" is one that conforms to the rules of the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature (not a junior homonym, for instance). A
"valid name" is the correct name (not a junior synonym, for instance).
Okay, suppose someone erects a species name (say, "X. albinus") for a shell
that turns out later just to be a color form (not even a subspecies) of a
species that was named earlier (say, "X. floridanus"). Then X. albinus is
an available but invalid name, and X. floridanus is the valid name for all
color forms of that species. You can still use the name "albinus" as a
"form" of X. floridanus, but forms aren't protected under the Code and
other people are free to ignore them.
 
Note that I carefully avoided discussing subspecies here. That's another
chapter! Someone who considers "albinus" to be a subspecies (not a color
form) of X. floridanus is free to call it "X. floridanus albinus".
 
The rules are a different for plants, which are governed under a somewhat
different Code. So if there are any gardeners out there, please don't get
confused by this brief summary. Your rules haven't changed.
 
Aw gee, I think I've gotten bogged down in words again.
 
>As for splitting it usually leads to a higher price for a color form of a
common species , there are far too many examples to give just one .
 
This is the way of the world. Those who split too much and too often earn a
reputation for it, of course. Which is the point that I was trying to make
earlier. Most people value their reputations and this helps to prevent
abuse of this amazing, centuries-old, voluntary system that we call
Linnaean nomenclature.
 
Andrew K. Rindsberg
Geological Survey of Alabama
Poetic License no. 7320115 for the last paragraph