[Fwd: Re: any official terminology?]

[Martin Spies]

Richard Pyle wrote:
> ... I'm not so sure that it is fair to invoke such a restrictive
> definition of "official".  There are many terms and conventions that have
> been used with traditional consistency throughout recent (and not-so-recent)
> zoological nomenclature, that are not covered by the ICZN Code.  It might be
> fair to regard some of these practices as "official" -- especially if some
> organization (other than ICZN) has deemed them to be so.
For a general solution to this problem, we would have to have an
'official' definition for the meaning of "official" in this context.
Only Dr. Edwards could explain how "restrictive" he intended the
meaning of "official" in his question to be.
'Objectively', I would agree with Richard's last sentence above if the
"official" in it were replaced by something like 'generally accepted',
which, in my understanding, is not the same as 'official'.

Just to clarify things: Personally, I do not agree with every facet of
every rule or recommendation given by the ICZN Code; however, I see no
other standard guideline to go by - which others are you alluding to,
Richard? - and go by a (one!) standard we must, if we are to avoid
more confusion than already exists.

> ...but the term "comb. nov." (or any indicator of a first new combination)
> is not "official" either (by your definition).
Agreed, but I didn't advertise "comb. nov." as a Code-official term.
Instead, the purpose of that paragraph of mine was to try to explain
why "comb. nov." is in common use, but "stat. rev." isn't.

> To my knowledge, there is no ICZN Code requirement for flagging
> first instances of a new combination.
I agree. However,

> Yes, "new combination" is defined in the glossary of the ICZN Code, but I
> don't see how that makes the combining of a species epithet with a genus
> name other than the original genus an "official" ICZN nomenclatural act.
I could agree with this only if it weren't mixing two issues. Of
course, combining a species epithet with a genus name other than the
original one is an act of nomenclature in the sense of the ICZN Code.
The existence of the Code glossary entry Richard is quoting is
sufficient proof for this, but see also the provisions listed in the
Code's index under "Combination", specifically Code Recommendation
51G. This is not the same issue as whether or not the Code mandates
publication of a term such as "comb. nov.".

> P.S. How would you definine a "Code-legal" combination?
For example by defining the opposite. Combining, e.g., a valid species
epithet with an unavailable genus name does not make for an available
scientific species name (binomen).
I suppose, in order to avoid such questions, I should have put the
term "Code-legal" between single quotation marks, to give it a
'so-called' quality. I repeat: without a nomenclature police around
(that few would like to see), the ICZN Code is not a law, or
"official", on the same level as laws enforced by national or
international jurisdiction. It is dependent on the consent of
zoologists. That notwithstanding, it is not only a useful standard
reference to answer questions like Dr. Edwards's scientifically, but
the only such tool available at this time.

To tie this back to Dr. Edwards' question: I do not see any standard
term that could be recommended for situations of return to a
combination other than the one most recently accepted. Moreover, I
would like to see very good reasons before such a term is introduced,
especially if the latter is done in any work far less 'official' than
the ICZN Code.


Regards,

--
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany