s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz
Wed Sep 16 19:43:37 CDT 2009
>The word "homotypic" when applied to "name-string" usually implies all the unique combinations (but excludes misspellings)
Plus cases where the same species is described twice, based on the same holotype, in the mistaken belief that it wasn't actually published the first time ...
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle [deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
Sent: Thursday, 17 September 2009 12:35 p.m.
To: 'David Patterson'
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] globalnames?
Yes, if you define it that way, I would agree that 5M is an underestimate.
The word "homotypic" when applied to "name-string" usually implies all the
unique combinations (but excludes misspellings).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Patterson [mailto:dpatterson at eol.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:32 PM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: <dipteryx at freeler.nl>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] globalnames?
> How many code compliant nam- strings? Minimally 5M - that
> is, each species has at least two homotypic or heterotypoc
> synonyms. I'll wager that's n underestimate.
> David Patterson
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom