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="jmorlan" data-source="post: 1801553" data-attributes="member: 1564">Thanks Mark for finding out more about "Opinion 2".  If there ever was a hypothetical name, I think Brehm's name in this case has to qualify.  It is not based on an actual object, but only on a fanciful perception of some bird found in "Amerika" and which is larger than a Three-toed Woodpecker.  That could be a Black-backed Woodpecker, or it could be a Bald Eagle for all the good the "description" does.  What it cannot be is an American Three-toed Woodpecker which does not fit the description, being on average smaller than any Three-toed Woodpecker found in Eurasia.If Opinion 2 still has standing, then Brehm's name has no right to validity under the law of priority.  However, this opinion refers to something called a "Systematic name" which I cannot find in the glossary.  Perhaps it has some arcane meaning other than "Scientific name" which is defined.But despite the plain-sense language of Opinion 2, apparently the question still boils down to whether Brehm's name, despite being unidentifiable, is a "nominal taxon."  Originally I understood that a "nominal taxon" is any taxon linked to an "available name."  An "available name" includes one "valid name" and all its synonyms.  Since Brehm's name is not a synonym, I figured it had to be a valid name.  But, it was claimed, that an "available name" could include a third class of names: those attached or used for a taxon which cannot be identified.  In fact, here is the definition of "available name" from the code:    and here again is the definition of a nominal taxon   It appears to me that Brehm's name may not qualify because there is no "name-bearing type."  There is no specimen and no description which can be linked to a type.  The code defines this as follows:   Since it is abundantly obvious that the taxon to which Brehm referred cannot be determined, his name has no linkage to a name-bearing type in accordance with the code.  Since it fails under the standard of having a name-bearing type, then Brehm's name is not a nominal taxon.  If Brehm's name is not a nominal taxon, the name he gave it is not "available" in the sense of the code, and Swainson's name is not a junior homonym.At best, Brehm's name is nomen dubium or name of doubtful application.  This is a class of names usually reserved to fossils for which there is a specimen, but it's not clearly identifiable. In such cases, a new type can be designated.  But in this particular case, I don't think that chosing a replacement type would work because we have no name-bearing type in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification