[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?
lists at curtisclark.org
Sun May 30 22:35:06 CDT 2010
On 5/30/2010 6:30 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> Maybe you could briefly explain Francisco's view then, in your own
> words, like I did?
I can contrast with botany, if that helps. (Imagine describing a
kiwi--it's a lot easier if the person you are talking to has seen a bird.)
The botanical concept of basionym is key to the difference. /Encelia
nutans/ and /Enceliopsis nutans/ are different names, based on the same
type. The basionym, the name applied to the type when it was described,
happens to be /Encelia nutans/. If I published a new combination /Geraea
nutans/, it would be yet another name, based on the same type. Each of
these names has a type, the type of the basionym. Because they are
different names, with the same type, they are homotypic (nomenclatural,
or objective) synonyms.
If I understand Francisco correctly, /Felis uncia/ is a nominal taxon;
it has a type. What makes this different from a basionym is that
/Panthera uncia/ and /Uncia uncia/ are the same name, under different
combinations. A basionym is "A previously published legitimate
name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym from which a new name is
formed for a taxon of different rank or position", but in zoology, a new
name is not formed, merely a new combination.
So in botany, new combinations = new names, but in zoology (again if I
interpret Francisco correctly), new combinations are the same name. This
may seem trivial, but it has widespread enough implications to have
caused all this chatter on Taxacom as people sorted it out. With luck,
someone reading this will be in the position to see that the next
edition of ICBN doesn'e equate nomenclatural synonym with the objective
synonym of zoology (for which evidently no one has yet to give an example).
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Director, I&IT Web Development +1 909 979 6371
University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
More information about the Taxacom