Valid names: how does taxonomy work? Apr 19, 2008 6:57:35 GMT 7
Post by Dave Evans on Apr 19, 2008 6:57:35 GMT 7
With regards to scientific publications, they are always retractable!: meaning that because a group of scientists managed to presumptively find new species and publish them in a journal, this does not mean they can't retract and correct their findings in a new article.
This is a very common practice in biological journals and i see no reason why they can't do the same thing with plants.
Yes they can, but one of my points is the TAXON is still valid, regardless of what it is! I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here... It is doesn't matter if it is a hybrid, it doesn't matter if it is a species, it doesn't matter if it is a hybrid of two different subspecies. You and Ron are talking about what the taxon is ACCEPTed as. It will still be valid no matter what you or I think about it.
In lay terms, accepted and valid are very close. In taxonomy, they mean two different things.
Also, species and hybrids are at the same exact taxonomic rank. It doesn't matter if it is a species or a hybrid. Many species are probably derived from ancient hybrids...
The only thing which might happen is the researchers could change their valid taxon so it will be listed as a hybrid, instead of as a species. But for now, they have no reason to, since they believe it is a good species. It really it is not a big deal, one way or the other. For now, it is a published species, until someone can actually prove it isn't, there certainly isn't anything wrong about putting in on a species list with a notation that the status of the taxon is questionable. Science is supposed to be checked by independent researchers. Not armchair taxonomists who haven't even looked at the material.