I’m familiar with the Interational Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. I’m not very familiar with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. So I’m refraining from offering an opinion outside my area of expertise.
“By valid I’m (only) referring to a currently accepted name according to consensus-revisions”
I understand how you’re using the term. I’m telling you that this is incorrect, not that I don’t understand it. :-)
“So again, can you explain your opinion on consensus-revisions which update a taxon name by sources considered authoritative? I’m now wondering if you disagree with the concept of any and all revisions themselves, which is confusing.”
You appear to be under the impression that there is some process by which agreement about the taxonomy of a particular group becomes something more than an opinion, but instead determines what names can be used and has some binding power to determine the ability of people to use other names. There is no such process.
I’m going by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. You should read it. Seriously.
“I can only speculate that you may be referring to some technical sense in which any synonym remains a synonym that can equally be used, but actually mainstream sources e.g. taxonomic authority databases and academic publications don’t use past synonyms (“inactive taxa” in iNat), they use current/accepted names (unless qualifying why they aren’t). It doesn’t make sense to use a non-accepted name in place of an accepted name, whether for plants or wasps.”
You wouldn’t generally use a name that you do not accept. You might well use a name that someone else does not accept. This is perfectly fine, common, and normal. Opinions about what names are or are not accepted are opinions, no more, no less. They have no binding authority whatsoever.
“You seem to be making the argument that everything is just an opinion and therefore no name or revision is more valid than any other.”
There are clear rules provided by the ICNafp. Within those rules, yes, the full range of possible different taxonomic opinions are equally valid. There is no authority with any power to decree one opinion correct and another not, and consensus is no more nor less than shared opinion.
Again, I think you’re under the impression that there is a process by which the officially correct taxonomy is determined. There is no such process. There is no officially correct taxonomy. That isn’t a thing.
If someone publishes a revision, maybe I read it and decide to follow it. Maybe I read it and don’t find it compelling. Maybe I just assume that the authors are probably correct and follow it blindly. People publish their taxonomic opinions. Other people evaluate those publications and reach their own conclusions in agreement or not. That’s the process.
“While I haven’t read that specific Code yet, I’d thought (and I think so did everyone else) that we’re discussing mainstream taxonomy. I don’t know yet whether your cited-Code disagrees with mainstream taxonomy […]”
LOL. You might’ve said so a while back and saved us both the trouble! :-)
What names are being applied to what plants is part of the data that I am interested in providing by means of iNaturalist observations. I would like my identifications of my observations to be easily and unambiguously available to people in the future.
I’m still not sure why this is a deeply confusing concept, but apparently it is.
@aspidoscelis@brian_d this topic has been dominated by you both and it’s turned into a two-person debate, making it dificult for others to add their thoughts. Please take a few hours or a day away from it and if you want to have a discussion about something tangentially related to the original post. If you want to have a two-person back and forth, please do so in private messages.
Everyone else: I’m sorry it went so far off track. Please don’t be afraid to flag posts that are off-topic or let moderators know when a topic has been taken over by a few people.
I would appreciate if a moderator would move the conversation for @aspidoscelis to a fresh post. He has completely derailed @jasonhernandez74 post and his original question.