[Taxacom] Scientific name vs Scientific name string

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Francisco, 
> 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.

Agreed! I, too, have been sloppy. As was pointed out to me by Geoff Read off-list, thw term "scientific name" seems to be singular for compound names, whereas the unqualified word "name" applies to the individual element. We were both accurate in our email postings, but while you were focused on the term "scientific name", I responded in the context of "name".

> > 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).

Yes, but you were correct in that "sapiens" is not a *scientific name* in the sense of the Code.

> > 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). 

Agreed. This is ambiguous in the Code. It seems that "name" can either mean "scientific name" (two or more name elements), or in the sense that I meant it (each element equals one name).

> 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).

Agreed -- A "scientific name" can be a singular term for a binomen or trinomen, whereas a "name" can refer to the indivudal elements.

Geoff Read also pointed out that Art. 5.1 supports the notion that a "scientific name" is singular for the combination.

> 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'm not so sure. Perhaps Phillipe was correct, but that the French Edition should have been regarded as the one "true" Code. Or, at least the English version needs to be disambiguated to at least the same degree that the French Edition is. Where I agree with Phillipe is that having two languages as the "official" Code can lead to problems where the different languages actually conflict with each other (rather than one further clarifying the same point in the other).

> 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. 

Agreed. In fact, even within our own community (computer-nerds), we modified the definition. It used to apply only to the "name" (sensu Code) parts; not the authorship (sensu anyone) parts. Now, however the term has evolved to include the authorship parts. As I suggested previously, it may not be too late to correct this.

> This thought leads to support inventing complicate terms, 
> which then will sound ugly and are not easy to use. Whatever 
> you do is wrong...

Indeed!

> 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...

Yes!

And I hope the BHL-Europe meeting went well. I had some very useful conversations with Chris Freeland, Cathy Norton, and other BHL representatives at the recent TDWG meeting. If we can keep the "momentum" going (another term used somewhat differently in physics, sports, and colloquial language; although at least analagously in this case), I think we can start to make some real progress in integrating biodiversity data (names, literature, ane more).

Always the optimist....

Aloha,
Rich