any official terminology? Nomenclature versus Taxonomy

[Richard Pyle]

Martin Spies wrote:

> 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.

I'm not sure I follow.  I don't believe that the ICZN Code deals with
"availability" of combinations.  My understanding is that it only deals with
availability of family-group, genus-group, and species-group names
(independent of each other).  In other words, whether or not a species-group
epithet is "available" (sensu ICZN) is indepedent of the genus it is
combined with.  To say that a "combination" is available is, in my mind to
say that both elements of the binomial are available names (independedtly of
the fact that they are combined together).

Moreover, in taxonomic terms, the "validity" of a species concept is
completely independent of its genus combination.  Placing species epithets
within different generic combinations says nothing taxonomically about the
species, it only says something taxonomically about the genus.

And, as I outlined in my previous post, I disagree that there can be only
one (objectively) "valid" combination for a particular species epithet at
any given point in time.  "Valid" is in the eyes of the subjective beholder.
And if subjective, then competing philosophies about how to circumscribe any
give genus name can be simultaneously "valid" by different taxonomists.

I will agree that any given taxonomist should have only one "valid" notion
of a species epithet and of the genus in which it should be placed, at any
one moment in time.

> 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.

It is exactly this reason why I shun the notion of "official" uses of any of
these non-Code-governed terms.  If someone wants to craft an "International
Code of Zoological Taxonomy", and get the taxonomic world to voluntarily
comply with it, that would be different.  Even if there was some widely
adopted "best practices" document, that would help.  But as a taxonomic
indexer myself, I completely ignore all of these terms altogether, design my
data structure according to ICZN rules, and allow these various
non-Code-governed "status changes" and such emerge from the index itself
(allowing a user to define them any way he/she wishes at query time).

In the ICBN paradigm, however, things are a bit different because (as I
understand it), New Combinations *are* a code-governed act, and what is
Recommendation 51G in ICZN is a code requirement in ICBN (I'm sure that
botanists will correct me if I am wrong...)

> 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.

Agreed!

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/pylerichard.html