(validity) and Art. 51

[Yuri P. Nekrutenko]

Steve Shattuck 12 Feb. wrote:

>   Here is a test for the information added when using () with species names.
>
>   1) How many valid species are in the following list:

There are no valid or invalis SPECIES, there are valid or invalid NAMES!!!
SPECIES, since it exists, is always quite VALID.
>
>   Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr)
>   Hypoclinea humilis Mayr
>   Linepithema humile (Mayr)
>
>   Answer: somewhere between 1 and 3.
    ANSWER: all names are valid, dependent on your generic concept and
ignorancy level.
>
>   2) How many valid species are in the following list:
>
>   Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr
>   Hypoclinea humilis Mayr
>   Linepithema humile Mayr
>
>   Answer: somewhere between 1 and 3.
    ANSWER: all names are valid, dependent on your generic concept and
accuarcy level.
>
>   3) How many valid species are in the following list:
>
>   Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr 1864)
>   Hypoclinea humile Mayr 1864
>   Linepithema humile (Mayr 1864)
>
>   Answer: somewhere between 1 and 3, but probably 1
    ANSWER: all names are valid dependent on your generic concept based choice and
ignorancy level.
>
>   4) How many valid species are in the following list:
>
>   Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr 1864
>   Hypoclinea humile Mayr 1864
>   Linepithema humile Mayr 1864
>
>   Answer: somewhere between 1 and 3, but probably 1
    ANSWER: all names are valid, dependent on your generic concept based choice
and accuracy/ignorancy level
>
>   5) How many valid species are in the following list:
>
>   Iridomyrmex humilis (Mayr 1864: 164)
>   Hypoclinea humile Mayr 1864: 164
>   Linepithema humile (Mayr 1864: 164)
>
>   Answer: almost certainly 1.
    ANSWER: all are valid, dependent on your generic concept and
quasi-scientific taste level.
>
>   6) How many valid species are in the following list:
>
>   Iridomyrmex humilis Mayr 1864: 164
>   Hypoclinea humile Mayr 1864: 164
>   Linepithema humile Mayr 1864: 164
>
>   Answer: somewhere between 1 and 3, but almost certainly 1.
    ANSWER: all are valid dependent on your generic concept and inaccuracy
level
>
>
>   Conclusion:  (i) Adding () alone gives us (WHOM?) almost nothing.  (ii) Adding year
>   of publication gives us (WHOM?) more and nothing is added by using () in addition.
>   (iii) Adding page number gives is much more and when combined with ()
>   provides significantly more information. - due to () themselves?
>
>   If we really want to maximise information content then require/recommend
>   that year and page number be used with (), but using () alone gives us very
>   little and should be dropped as a requirement.
>
If something is to be done, it should be done perfectly. This should not
be dropped as a requirement.
>
>   Steve Shattuck
>   Australian National Insect Collection
>   CSIRO, Div. of Entomology
>   P. O. Box 1700
>   Canberra, ACT  2601, Australia
>   phone (06) 246-4273, fax (06) 246-4264
>   steves at ento.csiro.au

Best regards

Yuri P. Nekrutenko
Institute of Zoology
UA-252601 Kiev 30, MSP
U K R A I N E
e-mail ypnekrut at mbat.freenet.kiev.ua
>
>   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>   To find out how to get old ICZN-4 messages,
>    send email to LISTSERV at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU and, in the text of your
>    message (not the subject line), write: GET ICZN-4 EXAMPLE1
>