I do not have a copy of the code of the ICZN in front of me, only a draft of the 4th edition. Assuming no changes are made to Article 13a between the draft and final publication, these are my interpretations:

From your quotation of their publication, one can certainly argue that Wells and Wellington "purported to differentiate" (which is what the ICZN requires) their taxon, even if they may not succeed in doing so. They provided both some "word characters" and a "bibiographic reference," thus they appear to satisfy the requirements of Article 13a (i and ii) of the ICZN's Code. In my opinion, the name they erected appears to meet the rules of the ICZN for availability and are thus "available" sensu the ICZN.

Alpin is apparently arguing that neither Wells and Wellington (1985) nor the literature they cited actually succeed in differentiating their taxon from other known species. But this argument is irrelevant because it does not affect the availability of the name.

Availability, however, does not equal validity. Another systematist may decide that the specimen to which this name refers may be conspecific with a species for which an available older name already exists. In that case Wells and Wellington's name may become a junior synonym or at best a subspecies name.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]