[Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

Rich,
sorry, you are partly right. I have overlooked this. The term "name" 
under definition (3) can refer to an element of a name. Absolutely 
correct. The term "name" is ambiguous in the ICZN Code, it has 
various meanings. I disagree with you in that your definition is the 
only possible usage of the term.

> The  compound "sapiens" (taken alone) is not a name in the sense of the
> Code.
I must withdraw this. Sorry. My mistake was not to have seen this in 
definition (3).

> Can you point to any passage in the Code that defines "name" the way
> you do (i.e., that "Homo sapiens" is *one* name)?

Yes I can. Homo sapiens can be regarded as one single name under the 
Code's definition. I would point to two locations:

1:
Glossary
"name, n.
    (1) (general) A word, or ordered sequence of words, 
conventionally    used
to denote and identify a particular entity (e.g. a person, place,
object, concept). (2) Equivalent to scientific name (q.v.). (3) An
element of the name of a species-group taxon: see generic name,
subgeneric name, specific name, subspecific name."

The Glossary gives 3 independent meanings and definitions of the 
term. This means that you can use the term "name" in 3 
different senses. 
Homo sapiens is one single name under definition (2), and two names 
under definition (3). 
Reference to "scientific name" in definition (2):

"The scientific name of a taxon at any rank above the species group
consists of one name; that of a species, two names (a binomen); and
that of a subspecies, three names (a trinomen)"

The expression "The scientific name (...) of a species" is used in 
the singular, so under this definition a species can have one single 
name (otherwise it would not be correct to say "the name" or "that" 
of a species, it should be "the names" or "those" of a species).

The "name" (here used under definition (2)) of a species consists of 
two "names" (here used under definition (3)). 

Glossary: 
"species-group name: A specific name or a subspecific name."

"specific name: The second name in a binomen and in a trinomen."

"species name or name of a species: A scientific name of a taxon at 
the rank of species (...)"

I admit that the English Code does not make this difference very 
clear, and does not express at every occasion clearly enough that 
"name" can be used in both senses as outlined above.

2:
There is an additional English expression "name of a species-group 
taxon" which is defined in the French Code's Glossary (!) as one 
single name consisting of a genus-species combination. The French 
Code also has some passages where the two different uses of the term 
"name" are much more clearly explained.

French Code, Glossaire:
nom spécifique: Le second mot dans un binom ou dans un trinom [Art 
5]. [Voir aussi: épithète spécifique.]

épithète spécifique: Nom spécifique dans un nom du niveau espèce. 

nom du niveau espèce: Nom scientifique de tout taxon du niveau 
espèce. Voir aussi: binom, trinom. [Anglais: name of a species-group 
taxon; attention: "species-group name" est un faut-ami, voir:  
épithète.]

Here it gets clearer that the term "name" (= nom) can be used under 
both definitions in the same sentence. Otherwise talking of an 
epithet as a "specific name in a name of a species-group taxon" would 
not give any sense. If you restrict "name" to definition (3) you 
could not talk of a name *in* a name ("Nom spécifique *dans* un 
nom...").

These were the two passages in the Code that in my 
interpretation justify to say that Homo sapiens can also be 
regarded as *one* name.

To me this once more shows that there are indeed occasions where a 
co-equal French Code is useful and that your bad feeling that 
led you to your choice not to vote in favour of Philippe Bouchet's 
idea was indeed deeply justified.

I see what you use as name-strings is very well and strictly defined. 
The problem arises when outside communities begin to use such terms 
and then start modifying their initial definitions. This thought 
leads to support inventing complicate terms, which then will sound 
ugly and are not easy to use. Whatever you do is wrong...

Just back from the BHL-Europe Meeting in Prague, where we 
use increasingly the term "taxonomic names". Another term not 
defined in the ICZN Code...

Francisco


University of Goettingen, Germany
www.animalbase.org