 | The content of Unavailable name was merged into Available name on 7 August 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Question from confused botanist
Can someone add some links to appropriate parts of the zoological code for the statement that an available name must "be published in a timely fashion by a reputable source"? That seems so completely different from the spirit of the botanical code, that it would be interesting to see what is involved. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Unavailable name into Available name
Should be the same article (one is opposite of the other), but separate wikidata items (like it already is). Artoria2e5 🌉 16:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the polarity of the merge should be as you have proposed it; there are many fewer unique links to Unavailable name than to Available name, so there will be less confusion and link editing needed that way. My inclination at this point is to agree with the merge proposal. Dyanega (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - no need to keep these strictly interrelated terms separate, especially when the articles are this short. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support per the above comments. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Botany
The article currently says botany doesn't use the term "available". It seems to me botany uses that in the common English sense. The Botanical Code says:
Article 11.4. "For any taxon below the rank of genus, the correct name is the combination of the final epithet of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon at the same rank, with the correct name of the genus or species to which it is assigned, except:
...
(c) or would be illegitimate under Art. 53.
If (c) applies, the final epithet of the next earliest legitimate name at the same rank is to be used instead or, if there is no final epithet available, a replacement name or the name of a new taxon may be published."
Article 6.11. "Ex. 16. Centaurea chartolepis Greuter (in Willdenowia 33: 54. 2003) was published as an explicit substitute (“nom. nov.”) for the legitimate name Chartolepis intermedia Boiss. (Diagn. Pl. Orient., ser. 2, 3: 64. 1856) because the epithet intermedia was unavailable in Centaurea due to the previously published Centaurea intermedia Mutel (in Rev. Bot. Recueil Mens. 1: 400. 1846)." (Madrid Code)
Therefore, Botany uses "available" in the opposite sense that Zoology does. An available name in Zoology is available to be cited as a valid species. An available name in Botany is a name available to be coined as a new species name.
The article should include this. But a explicit source would be appreciated. Mateussf (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Does an authoritative accounting of available names exist?
And if so, what is the process for the name being recognized as available? These are questions that I think a lot of people arriving at this article will have - I certainly did. GeoEvan (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
