When does a name become valid?

[Pete B]

With the recent reclassification in the Melanochromis and Cynotilapia groups, I was wondering, when does a new name become valid and what body makes the decision?

[Rico Morgenstern]

In short, a name must satisfy certain conditions specified in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature when established. If these conditions are not met, the new name is not available and cannot be valid. If they are met, the new name is available and usually valid from the date of publication. It is, however, not valid if the same has previously been given to another species, genus or family (applies also to subspecies, subgenus etc.). Of course, a name can subsequently become invalid, if the same species etc. is found to have already been named, i.e. the name becomes a junior synonym. Anyway, a new name doesn't have to pass some commitee to be valid. Such a body exists, however, namely the International Comission on Zoological Nomenclature, which may under certain circumstances be asked to rule about the validty of a name or other issues.

If you wish to go deeper into it, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is available online:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/

[Philippe Burnel]

With the recent reclassification in the Melanochromis and Cynotilapia groups, I was wondering, when does a new name become valid and what body makes the decision?

Valid or.... accepted ???

This is not the same.


Philippe

[Bas Pels]

Rico went into the formal matters, but, as Philiep pointed out, valid is not the same as accepted

If I would introduce a common name for, say, cichlids and catfish, I would have to convince people of a common ancestor - failing which, the name will not be accepted.

We do have a name for this group, bonefish (teleostei), incidentally

[Pete B]

Thank you for your replies.

What happens if a biologist studies a species and provides evidence that in his opinion, instead of that species containing 2 geographical variants, that they are actually 2 separate species and names them. But others, such as Ad Konings etc. disagree?

[Philippe Burnel]

Thank you for your replies.

What happens if a biologist studies a species and provides evidence that in his opinion, instead of that species containing 2 geographical variants, that they are actually 2 separate species and names them. But others, such as Ad Konings etc. disagree?

You must make your own point of view about the 2 "species" following your own way to separate or not populations

[cichla]

Dear Pete, dear all.
Let us assume that an author X described a population of a species as a new taxon in accordance with the ICZN and with evidence. Evidence means diagnostic characters or divergent character states. Such a description is not only a a new name but a hypothesis. If so then another author Y (who do not agree) is in need to false (falsifying) the evidence and to present an alternative hypothesis based on its own evidence.
One could think that the 'community' would select now the 'better' hypothesis which is based on more convincing evidences, but it is not that easy. Ideally science is an evolving process where the 'better' hypothesis survive the struggle (1). However, it is often not the case. Usually the opinion of the 'putative' authority is followed by the majority. Whether the evidences are more convincing or not. And more worst, it is not seldom that the 'authority' suppressed opposite views during the peer-review process or discredited the journal where alternative hypotheses are published. Some of the 'established authorities' (or clique) are not even afraid to insult authors of opposite views. Such unfortunate habit prevents the development to scientific and convincing hypothesis. The philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck (2) described how such clique protect their views: ''(i) a contradiction to the system appears unthinkable; (ii) what does not fit into the system remains unseen; (iii) alternatively, if it is noticed, either it is kept secret''. See also Mayr (3).

Well, how Philippe mentioned above you are in need to make your own point of view. Which evidences are more convincing for you.

Few indications ( ) for poor response to contradictions are: (i) a long list of authors but no proof that the evidences which support the contrary view are false; (ii) statements that the contrary view was published in a poor journal; (iii) statements like 'how could such a paper pass the peer-review'; (iv) the author of the contrary view is personally attacked.

Greetings, IS
Literature:
(1)Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
(2)Fleck: Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact.
(3)Mayr: This Is Biology. ''Some factors that work against acceptance of new ideas are not strictly scientific. Perhaps one author was disliked or had even offended the current Establishment, while another had unexpected success with a subsequently refuted theory because he belonged to a powerful clique.''