There's no such thing as a "valid name" in botanical nomenclature. The Preface to the Vienna Code says:
- it is convenient that neither “valid name” nor “invalid name” need be used in botanical nomenclature: either a name is validly published or else it is not a validly published name, i.e. not a name under the Code.
This version had an {{Unreferenced}} template on it, but it can't be referenced, since it's wrong. So I'm going to replace it, for the present, by a redirect to Correct name (botany). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it might be helpful to include a little more of the quote from the Vienna (2006) code, to explain the reasons: "Given the very different meaning of “valid” and “invalid” applied to names in zoological nomenclature (equivalent to the botanical “correct” and “incorrect”), it is convenient that neither “valid name” nor “invalid name” need be used in botanical nomenclature: either a name is validly published or else it is not a validly published name, i.e. not a name under the Code." Nadiatalent (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)