any official terminology? Nomenclature versus Taxonomy

[Martin Spies]

Dear Richard,

I'm afraid that by now this discussion is going off on too many
tangents; I apologize but won't have many more hours to set aside for
that.

> it was not at all self-understood (to me, anyway) that your use of
> "valid" was restricted to a single author at a single point in time.  I got
> the distinct impression from your earlier note that if Smith says that
> species "aus" belongs in genus "Aus"; and Jones says that species "aus"
> belongs in genus "Bus", that only one of them can be "technically" correct.
Sorry, but where's the difference or contradiction there?

To clarify, if possible:
Let's say we have a situation of ongoing taxonomic dispute, e.g. (from
your above example) between the generic placements of Smith (Aus aus)
and Jones (Bus aus). Under which circumstances, or in what kind of
work, would both of these taxonomic opinions be considered valid "at
the same time" (this is a critical element of the discussion; I
included it in earlier statements relevant here which, consequently,
can't be quoted or discussed without that element)?

Any individual author using the scientific name of that species as
valid would have to side with either Smith or Jones. In an index or
database, such as those you and Chris are concerned with, you would
probably want to present the situation properly by saying that
conflicting taxonomic opinions exist and have not been resolved.
However, could you really claim that BOTH conflicting taxonomic
opinions are valid? I don't think so, because that would create a
logical contradiction (one species cannot belong to two genera at the
same time). Instead, as an indexer or databaser, one would have to
stay neutral (not make a statement on validity in this case), or side
with Smith or Jones.

How about that?

--
Martin Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen
Germany