Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:20:47 +0000 From: schlauer@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg513$foo@default> Subject: Re: Sarracenia rosea
Dear Paul and all others interested in nomenclature,
The difference between valid and accepted names is a subtle
one. But it is of primary importance to separate the two terms
because they have widely different meanings.
> There have been a few questions over the validity of several "species"
> and it's not uncommon, even within our own ranks, to find that certain
> names are not very well accepted.
Note that the sentence contains the two words "validity" and
"accepted". "Acceptance" would have been a better substitute for
"validity" (v.i.).
> But not to accept a published species name is surely contrary to the
> Tokyo Convention on naming standards (or the equivalent convention for
> cultivars).
The Tokyo Convention (i.e. the last edition of the International Code
of Botanical Nomenclature, ICBN) regulates the proper naming of taxa
(usually not cultivated, wild plants) insofar as it prescribes what a
name must have at least, in order to be *valid*. A *valid* name is in
turn a name that was formed following the ICBN.
According to the preamble, "(9.) the only proper reasons for changing
a name are either a more profound knowledge of the facts resulting
from adequate taxonomic study or the necessity of giving up a
nomenclature that is contrary to the rules." I other words this
emphasizes the supremacy of taxonomy over nomenclature: if a
taxonomic study reveals that one name is the synonym of another name,
only the earliest *valid* name has to be *accepted*.
It is, therefore, *NOT* contrary to the convention not to *accept* a
*valid* name.
The ICBN does not regulate taxonomic work (i.e. *acceptance* or
synonymisation of names), it *only* regulates the proper (*valid*)
naming of taxa.
> I would therefore assume that, if indeed a new species name
> has been validly published according to the correct and current
> coventions, we must (must is emphasised) accept it
No. We must (if we want to produce complete lists) only cite it
because it is a *valid* name; we do not need to *accept* it.
> (ie. anyone not doing
> so is making a casual statement, not a scientific one).
This is not entirely correct. Almost all scientific taxonomic
treatments do contain long lists of not *accepted* (but *valid*)
synonyms.
> Anyone who
> wishes to do otherwise would be obliged to publish their own revision.
This is not formally required. It is of course be recommendable (but
not mandatory!) to first check what was meant originally by the names
that should be synonymised.
> This means that published lists of CP's should use the curretly valid
> published names irrespective of the views of the lit's
> publisher/author.
Any list of synonyms does represent the views of the author. There
are no rules for taxonomic decisions (v.s.).
> Any published list that contains names that are not
> published valid AND current (where such is not made clear), would
> invalidate the whole list;
Lists are neither *valid* nor *invalid* (cf. the definintions above),
only names can be such. It is of course unfortunate if a list of
names does not make differences between *valid* and *invalid* names
if both are included. But a more important (but still not mandatory)
point is that it should be made clear which names are *accepted* and
which are not.
> because if a list uses one invalid name, then one
> can not trust that any of the other names are valid, so all must be
> treated as potentially invalid until proven otherwise.
Yes. The same applies to *accepted* names. But still such a work
(without distinction between *valid/invalid or accepted/unaccepted*
names) cannot be called unscientific. It may even be useful for some
purposes.
> What I'm trying to say is that pubished names and lists of names can
> not represent personal opinion,
They always will.
> they must represent the current validly published
> names according to international convention.
They *should* do so but they do not necessarily need to.
> So, for example, if Sarracenia rosea has indeed been published,
> we should now be using that name and not the name it revised (even if we
> disagree!).
If an older *valid* name exists for the same taxon (based on same
type), the older name *must* be *accepted* according to the ICBN.
If a taxonomic revision shows the new taxon to be included in another
taxon for which an older *valid* name exists, again the older name
*must* be *accepted* according to the ICBN. So a taxonomic revision
can indeed necessitate the *acceptance* of another name, and
_Sarracenia rosea_ might be a name that should in fact not be
*accepted* even though it is *valid*.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:06 PST