Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] Validity of species/subspecies

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Thu Apr 10 02:02:11 CDT 2014 

David means "...the correct name is  XX zz Blank 2014"

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 10/4/14, David Patterson <david.j.patterson at asu.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Validity of species/subspecies
 To: "Karen Wilson" <Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au>
 Cc: "TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU" <TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Thursday, 10 April, 2014, 6:59 AM
 
 Karen is correct. Under the ICZN, the
 principle of co-ordination applies,
 and new names at certain levels (such as subspecies)?
 are deemed to have
 been automatically introduced at the same time should they
 be used at a
 different rank (such as a species).? So, should I
 elevate? XX yy n subsp zz
 Blank 2014 to species, the correct name is? XX yy Blank
 2014.
 
 David Patterson
 
 
 On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Karen Wilson <
 Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au>
 wrote:
 
 > Spot on, Ayhan!
 >
 > I was drafting a reply along the same lines when yours
 appeared.
 >
 > You are correct that, if it is a plant, then the
 International Code of
 > Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants applies, and
 this new species name
 > XX zz would be fine since a name only has priority in
 the rank in which it
 > was published (see http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art11 -
 > Art. 11.2).
 >
 > However, the Code does also RECOMMEND that such
 infraspecific epithets
 > should be re-used at species level unless already used
 for a different
 > species in that genus (see
 > http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art24 -
 Recommendation
 > 24B.2). So you could have Xx yy, Javier, as long as yy
 hasn't already been
 > used in genus XX.
 >
 > If an animal, then the Zoological Code applies and I
 think the answer
 > would be different - but a zoologist needs to confirm
 that.
 >
 > Regards
 > Karen W
 >
 >
 >
 ________________________________________________________________________________________________
 > Karen L. Wilson? |? Senior Research
 Scientist, Plant Diversity Section,
 > National Herbarium of New South Wales
 > Adjunct Assoc. Prof., University of New England?
 |? Secretary, General
 > Committee, International Code of Nomenclature for
 Algae, Fungi & Plants
 > Phone: +61-2 -9231 8137? |? Fax: +61-2-9251
 7231? |? email:
 > karen.wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 [mailto:
 > taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
 On Behalf Of Ayhan Senkardesler
 > Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2014 4:41 PM
 > To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
 > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Validity of species/subspecies
 >
 > Dear Javier,
 >
 > My question would be: Are talking about plants or
 animals?
 >
 > In ICNafp:
 >
 > "11.2. A name has no priority outside the rank in which
 it is published."
 > (see http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art11)
 >
 > I know that it sounds unfair, however, you can give a
 brand-new name to
 > subspecies, if you raising it to species level; and you
 will get the
 > authorship too, e.g. *Xx zz Javier*.
 >
 > It is up to you (or to the author): She/he can propose
 a new combination
 > at species level (this would be wise in my opinion), or
 give a new name
 > with new authorship (this I called tricky way).
 >
 > On the other hand, I don't know the situation in
 Zoological Code.
 > Therefore I was asking you whether you talking about
 plants or animals.
 >
 > Best wishes,
 >
 > Ayhan
 >
 > On 10.04.2014 09:20, Javier Luque wrote:
 > > Dear Taxacomers,
 > >
 > > A quick question. Imagine two subspecies: the
 extant *Xx xx xx, *and
 > > the fossil *Xx xx yy*.? Someone proposed that
 the fossil subspecies
 > > was different enough from species *Xx xx* to
 deserve full specific
 > > status, and therefore named it *Xx zz**.?
 *Note that, instead of
 > > elevating subspecies *Xx xx yy* to the species
 rank (i.e. *Xx yy*),
 > > the author gave it a new specific epithet (i.e.
 *Xx zz*).? Here is the
 > > question: is *Xx zz *a valid species?? Or
 should the subspecies *yy*
 > > have priority as the specific epithet?
 > >
 > > Thanks for your time and help.
 > >
 > > Kind regards,
 > > Javier
 > >
 >
 >
 > --
 > ------------------------------------------
 > Dr. Ayhan Senkardesler
 > Ege University Faculty of Science Dept. of Biology
 > http://akademik.ege.edu.tr/?q=tr/bilgiler&id(08
 >
 >
 >
 > EGE ?N?VERS?TES?
 >
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Bu elektronik posta ve onunla iletilen b?t?n dosyalar
 sadece
 > g?ndericisi tarafindan almasi amaclanan yetkili gercek
 ya da t?zel
 > kisinin kullanimi icindir. Eger s?z konusu yetkili
 alici
 > degilseniz bu elektronik postanin icerigini
 aciklamaniz,
 > kopyalamaniz, y?nlendirmeniz ve kullanmanizkesinlikle
 yasaktir
 > ve bu elektronik postayi derhal silmeniz
 gerekmektedir.
 >
 > EGE ?N?VERS?TES? bu mesajin icerdigi bilgilerin
 do?rulu?u veya
 > eksiksiz oldugu konusunda herhangi bir garanti
 vermemektedir. Bu
 > nedenle bu bilgilerin ne sekilde olursa olsun
 iceriginden, iletilmesinden,
 > alinmasindan ve saklanmasindan sorumlu degildir.
 > Bu mesajdaki g?r?sler yalnizca g?nderen kisiye
 aittir ve
 > EGE ?N?VERS?TES?'nin g?r?slerini yansitmayabilir
 >
 >
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 > This e-mail and any attachments may contain
 confidential and
 > privileged information. If you are not the intended
 recipient,
 > please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail,
 delete this
 > e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use
 of this
 > information by a person other than the intended
 recipient is
 > unauthorized and may be illegal.
 >
 > EGE UNIVERSITY makes no warranty as to the accuracy or
 completeness
 > of any information contained in this message and hereby
 excludes any
 > liability of any kind for the information contained
 therein or for
 > the information transmission, reception, storage or use
 of
 > such in any way whatsoever. The opinions expressed in
 this
 > message belong to sender alone and may not necessarily
 reflect the
 > opinions of EGE UNIVERSITY.
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
 >
 >
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and
 may contain
 > confidential and/or privileged information.
 > If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
 the sender and then
 > delete it immediately.
 > Any views expressed in this email are those of the
 individual sender
 > except where the sender expressly and with authority
 states them to be the
 > views of the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW
 Department of Premier
 > and Cabinet.
 >
 > PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS
 EMAIL
 > _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
 >
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list