[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New papers in Geobios (and nomenclatoral gripe)
T. Michael Keesey wrote:
A dubious name is still a valid name.
I know. I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
If it was forgotten (oblitum) or undescribed (nudum) or preoccupied, it'd
be invalid, but dubious names are still "available" under ICZN rules.
I was refering to the *taxonomic* validity of a genus, not to any
nomenclature problem. A genus name may be nomenclaturally valid, but the
genus the name denotes can be taxonomically invalid. This is currently the
case with _Mochlodon_ (though this could change). Every nomen dubium is
still a potentially valid name (unless it's preoccupied, of course).
_Antrodemus_ and _Trachodon_ are likewise nomina dubia; this is a taxonomic
decision, and is subjective. But the names _Antrodemus_ and _Trachodon_ are
perfectly valid; this is a matter of nomenclature, and is objective.
You can't just sweep such
names under the carpet -- they are "incertae sedis" but not invalid.
Oh, I see what you mean; no, this isn't what I meant at all. If _Mochlodon
suessi_ is a nomen dubium, then it is taxonomically *invalid*. As I said,
as long as it is a nomen dubium then no more material can be referred to _M.
suessi_, and _M. suessi_ cannot be referred to any other species or genus
(e.g., as a junior synonym) or vice versa. That's the unhappy fate of a
nomen dubium. But, yes the NAME _Mochlodon_ is still valid. It's the TAXON
that is invalid, so long as it's regarded as a nomen dubium.
Now, a separate argument would be whether ICZN rules make sense....
The ICZN doesn't rule on nomina dubia. I know you know this :-) ...but I'm
just trying to emphasize the point that the validity of _Mochlodon suessi_
as a taxon governs the nomenclature of _Mochlodon_ versus _Zalmoxes_.