Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:12:18 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
How do we talk about a species name that the current experts consider to be
the right name at this moment of space-time?
Correct name?
Earliest valid name?
Correct valid name?
The right stuff?
At 11:41 AM 11/24/2003, you wrote:
>It's important to keep separate the issues of nomenclatural versus
>biological appropriateness of subspecies. A subspecies name can be an
>official scientific name, based on the ICZN rules. Varieties, etc.
>proposed after the rule was established cannot be official scientific names.
>
>On the other hand, there is the question of whether subspecies are a
>biologically meaningful concept. Someone who does not think so will
>either synonymize or elevate subspecies names to species. Organisms are
>much more variable than any system of names, so there will be cases that
>seem to make subspecies an appealing option and cases where subspecies
>seem to be a bad idea.
>
>A similar issue comes from subjective synonyms. If two people
>independently name a species based on different specimens from the same
>population, everyone may agree that the second name is biologically
>superfluous. However, it is a validly proposed name.
>
> Dr. David Campbell
John Wolff
Lancaster, PA
|
|
|