"prevailing usage" etc.

[Ron at]

This is a great post. Thank you for it. I was looking not long ago for the
information contained in 23.9.6 as a reference for someone else. I had read
it but did not remember where in the code it was. I will now highlight it
so as to find it easier the next time. Whether as and editor, reviewer or
author (all with Lepidoptera) I do not allow "check lists" to "count" as
any usage.

I think the Code says little on the topic of nomenclators and indices or
lists of names because taxonomists should not even have to ask if such
subjective "popular" publications qualify as systematic determiners.  I had
to deal with this as author in 1998 when determining what did and did not
count by the Code relative to the name Chlosyne ismeria, and in 2000 as
editor relative to old names in the butterfly genus Celastrina.
Personally, I don't even think Field Guides for the general populace should
be given any heed relative to systematics and taxonomy. Unfortunately, to
lay people these surface - and lots of pretty pictures - "works of
literature" are the final word on what is and is not, and what  X  is to be
known as. The worst thing though is that the two or three people who end up
being the frequent authors of these also become considered the taxonomic
authorities and experts - when the only thing they are really experts at is
taking a lot of great pictures.

Ron Gatrelle

----- Original Message -----
From: "Spies Martin" <spies at ZI.BIOLOGIE.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: "prevailing usage" etc.


> Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Lorenz,
> dear TAXACOMembers,
>
> following the zoological Code, we must make a clear distinction
> between those cases in which, according to each relevant Article,
> "prevailing usage" is to be considered, and those - such as most
> cases of incorrect or variant spellings - for which there are
> provisions without regard to "prevailing usage". (In my opinion
> we are very fortunate that the latter concept has not (yet) been
> declared the guiding principle of nomenclature. I would be glad
> to supply anybody interested with arguments for this opinion,
> e.g. see further below, but that is not the topic of Dr. Lorenz'
> inquiry.)
>
> There is nothing in the Code's fourth edition that justifies the
> raising of catalogs, checklists, etc. to a kind of super-publications
> with higher authority than others. On the contrary, there actually
> is evidence for the opposite: for example, see Article 23.9.
> in which the occurrence of a name in a "nomenclator or index
> or list of names" (23.9.6) is declared irrelevant for determinations
> of solutions in cases of homonymy.

Snip