Re: New papers in Geobios (and nomenclatoral gripe)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

T. Michael Keesey wrote:

> A dubious name is still a valid name.

I know.  I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.

> If it was forgotten (oblitum)  or undescribed (nudum) or preoccupied, it'd 
> be invalid, but dubious names are still "available" under ICZN rules.

I was refering to the *taxonomic* validity of a genus, not to any 
nomenclature problem.  A genus name may be nomenclaturally valid, but the 
genus the name denotes can be taxonomically invalid.  This is currently the 
case with _Mochlodon_ (though this could change).  Every nomen dubium is 
still a potentially valid name (unless it's preoccupied, of course).

_Antrodemus_ and _Trachodon_ are likewise nomina dubia; this is a taxonomic 
decision, and is subjective.  But the names _Antrodemus_ and _Trachodon_ are 
perfectly valid; this is a matter of nomenclature, and is objective.

> You can't just sweep such
> names under the carpet -- they are "incertae sedis" but not invalid.

Oh, I see what you mean; no, this isn't what I meant at all.  If _Mochlodon 
suessi_ is a nomen dubium, then it is taxonomically *invalid*.  As I said, 
as long as it is a nomen dubium then no more material can be referred to _M. 
suessi_, and _M. suessi_ cannot be referred to any other species or genus 
(e.g., as a junior synonym) or vice versa.  That's the unhappy fate of a 
nomen dubium.  But, yes the NAME _Mochlodon_ is still valid.  It's the TAXON 
that is invalid, so long as it's regarded as a nomen dubium.

> Now, a separate argument would be whether ICZN rules make sense....

The ICZN doesn't rule on nomina dubia.  I know you know this :-)  ...but I'm 
just trying to emphasize the point that the validity of _Mochlodon suessi_ 
as a taxon governs the nomenclature of _Mochlodon_ versus _Zalmoxes_.

Cheers

Tim