[Taxacom] validation of taxon names

[Stephen Thorpe]

how does that apply to the Diarthrocera example? I don't think it helps, because it is the circumscription which is unclear ...
 
sure, if you think Diarthrocera is a synonym of Corticaria, then Corticaria is the valid name, but this seems irrelevant to the problem ...
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Saturday, 18 February 2012 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] validation of taxon names

On 2/17/2012 2:51 PM, Richard Pyle wrote:
> Absolutely!  But I'll take it a step further:  the question: "Is name X
> presently treated as valid?" has no answer, as such.  Without qualification
> of what is meant by "presently", and without some indication of by whom a
> name is treated as valid or not, this is a question that can only be
> answered in shades of gray (or spectra of RGB, if you prefer).

Rich, wasn't it you in the past who pointed out the importance of 
circumscription to this endeavor? I think one could realistically say 
that for any well-characterized (with respect to types) circumscription 
there is only a single valid name. Maybe what we need is a better way to 
code circumscriptions.

-- 
Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
After 2012-01-02:
Biological Sciences                  +1 909 869 4140
Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768


_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here