Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:29:31 -0500
Reply-To: Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender: Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "José H. Leal" <jleal@SHELLMUSEUM.ORG>
Subject: Re: "Valid" names
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031014084430.01e1bc20@mail.dejazzd.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
Article 23.1 of the current edition of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature states: "23. 1. Statement of Principle of Priority. The valid
name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to it, unless that
name has been invalidated or another name is given precedence by any
provision of the Code or by any ruling of the Commission. For this reason
priority applies to the validity of synonyms, to the relative precedence of
homonyms..."
In a nutshell, according to the Code, junior synonyms are not valid names.
Cheers,
José
At 08:53 AM 10/14/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>> Actually all of the synonyms are valid names, though it is inappropriate
>>to use all but the oldest... which is pumicea. There are currently set
>>rules for this kind of thing, though I know that these are going to
>>change (for the worse, unfortunately).
>
>Andrew has touched on a separate issue that has always bothered me. Using
>this definition of VALID name means you have to know all the synonyms that
>pertain to a species, some numbering into the dozens. This complicates an
>already unmanageable situation beyond all necessity. What do we call the
>single currently CORRECT or APPROPRIATE or TRUE name of a species?
>
>John Wolff
>Lancaster, PA
__________________________________________________________________________
José H. Leal, Ph.D., Director
The Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum
Editor, The Nautilus
www.shellmuseum.org
3075 Sanibel-Captiva Road
Sanibel, FL 33957 USA
(239)395-2233
fax (239)395-6706
"But fit the facts together in any other way and you get more nonsense
instead of less."
Travis McGee in "The Green Ripper," as told to John D. MacDonald.
[text/html]
| 
