Reflections on defining “taxon names”, and on scientific names in general

PAUL VAN RIJCKEVORSEL — Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +1300

Some comments are offered on aspects of defining “taxon names”, using as a starting point the debate between Stuessy and Queiroz (plus Cantino), in 2000–2001. It is argued here that both sides in that debate were restating established positions, rather than addressing the basic question. It appears desirable to be more precise and it is important to specify context. The end-user expects a taxon name to be defined, and justly so. A taxonomic definition of a name should not be influenced by nomenclatural considerations but should be based on taxonomy only; a point worth noting is that there can be as many taxonomic definitions as there are taxonomic viewpoints. As to nomenclature, it is pointed out that, by its internal workings, a Code does not govern mere strings of characters (names), but rather formal entities.

Bionomina

Reflections on defining “taxon names”, and on scientific names in general