[Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Tue Nov 9 13:56:33 CST 2010

Hi all,

Actually on re-reading Art. 57.8.1   I see the zooogical Code does not actually say that homonymy between identically spelled but different genus + species combinations does not exist, merely that it should be "disregarded" i.e. my reading is that it does not require to be addessed with a name change at the epithet level. So perhaps it is OK to call them homonyms after all?

Regards (or possibly disregards?) - Tony

From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of dipteryx at freeler.nl [dipteryx at freeler.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2010 3:36 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Richard Jensen
Verzonden: di 9-11-2010 14:54

> In Paul's note below, I assume the two genera named Aricia must
> minimally belong to different families.  Or, would two different
> subfamilies be sufficient?

I assume that in practice there will only be lots of such cases
(specific names with the same spelling combined with generic names
with the same spelling) in quite unrelated groups (the workers on
such groups being unaware of each other's efforts), but there
appears to be no such requirement:

   "57.8.1. Homonymy between identical species-group names in
    combination (originally or subsequently) with homonymous
    generic names having the same spelling but established for
    different nominal genera [Art. 53.2] is to be disregarded."


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

More information about the Taxacom mailing list