[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?
Michael A. Ivie
mivie at montana.edu
Sun May 30 21:17:12 CDT 2010
OK, reread Francisco's response over and over until you understand it.
And, please don't speak for "most people." Most people do not even know
about zoological nomenclature (ca. 5+ billion). Of those who are expert
in zoological nomenclature, I think, based on reading the code and lots of
literature that Francisco has the standard view very well explained. Try
calling them "different forms of the same name." Like egg larva pupa and
adult are all the same species. They are not objective synonyms of the
same species, but different forms (i.e. combinations) of the same name.
And, Gia save us from Botanical nomenclature rules!
> I think most people would say that Felis uncia and Uncia uncia are
> different names for the same species, and by the usual everyday definition
> of the term, therefore synonyms. They also have the same type specimen(s),
> so are homotypic. Some people go further, and claim that they are
> objective synonyms, but I do not, because there is nothing objective about
> them as they simply result from different subjective taxonomic placements.
> On the other hand, it is possible to say that they are the same name for
> the (same) species, just in different combinations, in which case they
> can't (except in a trivial sense) be synonyms. The ambiguity arises not
> just because species names are binomial*, but because one component of the
> binomial is a higher level in the taxonomic hierarchy (i.e., genus). This
> mixes up the two distinct issues of naming and placement in a taxonomic
> hierarchy. The fact that there is an ambiguity here means (by definition!)
> that there is no
> right or wrong answer!
> This has nothing to do with the issue that you mention of nominal species.
> A nominal species is just a name for a species, and the same species can
> have more than one name (i.e., synonyms), so more than one nominal species
> can refer to the same species. This is regardless of anything to do with
> subjective vs. objective synonymy.
> There are additional (but irrelevant) issues to do with orthographic
> variants of names, optional elements in names (e.g., subgenus,
> author/date), ...
> *names could have been binomial without posing these sorts of problems.
> Just as the identical spelling ('bus') in Aus bus and Cus bus implies no
> relationship (plenty of unrelated things are called [genus] vulgaris, for
> example), there is no reason why the sharing the same "first name" need
> imply any relationship either. It is only because we have made the "first
> name" correspond to genus (a level higher in the taxonomic hierarchy) that
> these complexities and ambiguities result, but there is no way around
> this, so we just have to live with a little ambiguity ...
> From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>;
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Mon, 31 May, 2010 1:17:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Objective synonyms?
>> (1) [this may come as a BIG SHOCK to the bioinformatics people, but]
>> Panthera uncia, Uncia uncia and Felis uncia are all the same name!
> Well, what about you, how many names do you have?
> Stephen Thorpe,
> Stephen Th.,
> Thorpe, Stephen,
> S. Thorpe,
> Did you ever count them all?
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1601 S. 19th Ave
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717-3020
(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu
More information about the Taxacom