any official terminology? Nomenclature versus Taxonomy

[Paul Kirk]

So Martin, speaking as a 'closet' botanist (I'm a mycologist), if there can be only one valid name at any one time, who decides this?

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On
Behalf Of Martin Spies
Sent: 03 May 2005 15:03
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] any official terminology? Nomenclature versus
Taxonomy


Dear G.B.,

thanks for the clarification of what you were aiming for. However,

> ... the original combination is already valid ...
> I might disagree in principle with the concept that several
> valid combinations could be in existence simultaneously, since it could
> be argued that the most recently published combination should be the
> valid one.
'Strictly' speaking, only the latter alternative can be correct. If
definite but conflicting generic placements of a species remain
disputed between workers for an extended period of time, then
taxonomists, nomenclators and indexers all have a problem.

In any case, even if one looks at such matters with the eye of the
taxonomist 'only', one ought to keep a clear distinction between the
nomenclatural categories "available" and "valid". With reference to
your above statements: if a species has been transferred, then the
original combination is available but not valid; and, obviously, many
combinations containing a given species epithet can be available, but
only one can be valid at a given point in time - and, in my opinion,
this pertains to both nomenclatural and taxonomic validity.

> But if that always was strictly followed, inadvertent
> changes would be made too many times by authors who were not aware of
> the most recent literature.
Those kinds of things happen all the time anyway, but they are no
reason good enough to abandon attempts at precision in taxonomy,
nomenclature, and their respective terminologies.

> I tend to agree that Revised Status is general enough that
> it could be used as a flag in this instance.
As I wrote before, this may depend significantly on who will be
reading the term you're using. Since it isn't possible any more to
test what different readers of this thread would have understood by
"stat. rev." without the influence of this discussion, I've put that
question to the experienced colleague I'm sharing my office with, who
hadn't read this TAXACOM thread. Well, his interpretation of "stat.
rev." was quite plausible, as it was influenced by some knowledge of
comparable Code concepts and terms. However, his (more or less
'intuitive') interpretation decidedly was not identical to that
suggested by Chris Thompson or the one sought by G.B. Edwards.

Thus, the bottom line is: There may be perfect taxonomic 'rather than'
nomenclatural reasons to use terms like "stat. rev.", but somebody
'official' better make sure such terms are first defined unambiguously
and universally, or there will be more red flags going up than others
leading to meaningful transmission of signals.

Regards,

--
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany