Talk:Ternary name

"Ternary name" is not in the ICBN

As far as I can discover, the term "ternary name" is not in the ICBN, at least not the Vienna Code which is now in force.

• The terms used are defined in a glossary here. There's no entry for "ternary name".
• Infraspecific taxa are dealt with in Articles 24-27, starting here. I can't find the term "ternary name" anywhere.
• The correct term according to the code is "combination", as defined in Appendix VII: "combination. A name of a taxon below the rank of genus, consisting of the name of a genus combined with one or two epithets (Art. 6.7)."

The definition of "combination" is clearly limited to two- or three-part names. But what about 'descriptors' (my neutral term) with four or more parts? They aren't "combinations" but are they "names" under the Code? To me, there is some lack of clarity in the wording of the code at 24.1 Example 1:

"Ex. 1. Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch. This taxon may also be referred to as Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surculosa Engl. & Irmsch.; in this way a full classification of the subforma within the species is given, not only its name."

This seems to have been interpreted in this article (and in Botanical name) as meaning that "Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa" is a name (and in particular a combination), whereas "Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surculosa" is not a name, but a classification. But the code doesn't actually say this, and one sense of "not only its name" is that the full form gives both the name and the classification.

Whatever the terminology, it's clearly the case that a taxon can be referred to either by a three-part name or by a multi-part 'descriptor' which may or may not be a "name".

I don't think the article is correct in its description of the operation of the Code.

However, I don't have access to specialist works which interpret and explain the Code which may clarify this matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also favour deleting this page. In my experience nobody says "ternary name", they do say "trinomial". A multi-part descriptor of the sort you describe is often referred to as "not a name but a "classification" ". Article 24.1 is the only thing that anyone has directed me to about this matter, which must be one of the most difficult in nomenclature. Nadiatalent (talk)

I don't support deleting the page unless the material exists elsewhere (this is the kind of thing which would just get re-created, probably more poorly than what we have). As for the title of the page, a google scholar search for "ternary name" does get a certain number of hits from places like Taxon, but since Taxon isn't online, I can't readily look at the context. I'd have no objection to renaming ternary name to infraspecific taxon (botany) or infraspecific taxon (although the latter might be a little too tricky in terms of distinguishing ICBN from ICZN). As for whether a name like Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surculosa should be called a "name" or a "classification", I'd just re-word our text to be a bit less specific. It seems more useful to just mention this kind of name and give a rough idea of how it works, than to get into the taxonomic fine points. Kingdon (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points:

1. A ternary name/trinomial/whatever you want to call it, is a name, not merely a combination. See article 24.1: "The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a species and an infraspecific epithet. A connecting term is used to denote the rank."
2. A "ternary name"/"trinomial"/whatever you want to call it, is not an infraspecific taxon. It is a type of name given to an infraspecific taxon. I'm opposed to any page move that conflates taxonomy with nomenclature in this way.

Hesperian 01:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues:

• Re-writing the content of the page so that it has inline references to the Code and is more accurate as to what the the Code says (I agree that the article should avoid over-fine taxonomic points).
• Re-naming or merging the page. I agree with Hesperian that the title of the page must be about names, not taxa, so it could be "Infraspecific taxon name (botany)", but although accurate, this seems a horrible title to me. Another possibility is to merge the content into Botanical_name#More_than_two_parts which already covers this in less detail. I favour the latter: keep all the material about botanical names together where it is more easily updated if/when the Code changes, etc. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

For years, I had this wrong, and was corrected a few years ago by Jin Reveal on the Taxacom mailing list. Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon and Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa are indeed names. Saxifraga aizoon var. aizoon subvar. brevifolia f. multicaulis subf. surculosa is a classification. I think a good article title might be Infraspecific name (botany); it's succinct and accurate. "Combination" is a superset, since it also includes binomials, and in everyday speech (!) by botanical nomenclaturists, it is most often used in reference to the act of combination, placing an epithet with a genus, hence "new combination". --Curtis Clark (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Neat suggestion for the page name. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but I'm not sure whether most botanists would identify the infraspecific name of Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa to be "Saxifraga aizoon subf. surculosa" or "surculosa". Hesperian 23:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they would; "species name" is clearly understood to be the combination of genus + specific epithet, so all that's being said is that an infraspecies name is a species name + an infraspecific epithet, which is fairly easy to explain.

I going to be WP:BOLD and move this page; there seems to be strong support from those who understand the Code that "ternary name" is not appropriate.

I'll try to find time to revise the page; help appreciated. When it's correct, I'd like us to think about merging with other botanical nomenclature material. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)