John, There was a long string of discussions on this point just a month or two ago. I do not know how to retrieve them; the instructions came when I signed up. However, an 'available' name is any one meeting certain rules for making names, is properly published and can be used. A 'valid' name is the most recently published 'available' name. Although it may not be the 'right' name, it is generally the best an amateur can use, although you can always note why you think it is incorrect. Sometimes a professional will use a valid name which he knows needs to be corrected, but is not going to be updated soon. Then it usually is put in quotes or otherwise noted why it needs correction. If a name was published as a subspecies, it is best to keep it as such until validly updated. Again, however, you can always note that the subspecies name should be elevated. In the florifer/dilectus case the names had been used both ways, but the valid way was Chicoreus dilectus. Allen Aigen [log in to unmask] -- John Wolff <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 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