BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 3085425" data-attributes="member: 24811">Thanks, Richard (and thanks to Guy for making it available, even if I cannot agree with it and, quite frankly, find it disturbingly dismissive of Mlíkovský's view which it evidently misrepresents completely).As expected, thus. |=(|FWIW, Pallas' usage of the "category" varietas looks consistent to me: he describes them, but does not name them. In a subset of cases, in his Latin text, he happens to use a Latin adjective (or sometimes, as for the partridge, more than one) to qualify the Latin noun varietas; but there is no clear evidence that these adjectives were meant to offer a conventional way to denote the described taxa, and Pallas did not usually use them to do so: these adjectives are just adjectives in a standard text, they are not names.Not being names, these words fall outside the scope of the ICZN as described by Article 1.2: the Code has nothing to say about them, and neither Article 45.6.4, nor its subclause 45.6.4.1 applies to them.Additionally, to be available, "a name must be used as valid for a taxon when proposed" (Article 11.5). This requirement is not fulfilled: a word not used as a name at all by an author is obviously not "used as valid for" anything. And, even if we wanted to pretend that it was possible to regard the word as "having acquired name status" due to subsequent usage, this name could still not be available from a publication where it was not treated as a name.<a href="http://imsgbif.gbif.org/CMS_ORC/?doc_id=2784&download=1" target="_blank">Welter-Schultes, 2013</a>, p.53:</blockquote>

Verification