>>`There is no such thing as "official" acceptance - there is no "official" body that judges these things.'

>>

>>I thought that's what the ICZN was for...



The ICZN is not there to give the seal of approval (or not) to every taxonomic act. It does not adjudicate on scientific quality, it merely establishes procedures which govern whether *names* are available (which is, for instance, why Hoser's many names, or at least most of them, are available - he has followed the bureaucratic rules of the Code - whether the species he has attached the names to are valid biological entities is another question).



The ICZN is responsible for publishing the Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which lays down the rules whether or not a name is available. These are rules that govern factes such as medium of publication, requirement for types and diagnoses, and rules such as priority etc.



The ICZN also has the power to make rulings where a strict interpretations of the Code would go against the interest of stability and universality of the nomenclature. For instance, if you suddenly discover an older, largely forgotten name (which would take precedence under a strict interpretation of the rules) for a well-know taxon that has long been known under a more recent name, then the ICZN can set the provisions of the Code aside to preserve the stability of the nomenclature.



Think of the ICZN as a road trafic tribunal: you don't have to call the judge every time you want to make a left turn, but if someone screws up, the tribunal will sort it out.



Cheers,



Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

[ Show Entire Thread ]