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

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue Nov 9 17:25:52 CST 2010

There are number of ambiguities in the zoological Code, and the ICZN
Commissioners are acutely aware of them. With luck, they will be largely
eliminated (and few new ambiguities created) in the 5th Edition of the Code.
The real question in my mind, is the definition of "disregarded".


From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:21 PM
To: Richard Pyle; Tony.Rees at csiro.au; dipteryx at freeler.nl;
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes

actually, the ICZN glossary is just sloppy here:
(3) In the species group: each of two or more available specific or
subspecific names having
the same spelling, or spellings deemed under Article 58 to be the same, and
established for different nominal taxa, and either originally (primary
homonymy) or subsequently (secondary homonymy) combined with the SAME
generic name
SAME generic name could mean either:
(1) same spelling, different taxa; or
(2) same spelling and same taxa
Article 57.8.1 is clearer:
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 is to be disregarded


From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au; dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 10 November, 2010 11:39:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes

Hi Tony,

> Simply because something is not defined in 
> the Code does not preclude it from existing outside the scope 
> of governance of the Code (which is confined to 
> nomenclature), I would submit.

I completely agree!  I just wanted to make sure people were not mis-quoting
or mis-representing the zoological Code.  I wrote the bulk of the note this
morning (before your post referencing Art. 57.8.1), then sent it when I got
to work -- but before I saw your aforementioned Post citing Art. 57.8.1.
Basically, by the time I sent my message, you had already made the point I
was trying to make.  So I think we're in complete agreement.

> In other words I have not seen any compelling argument that 
> binomial homonyms do not exist in zoology, and therefore if 
> they exist in zoology, they can equally exist between Codes 
> as well - unless someone would like to put the counter-argument??

Again, I agree completely!



Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org <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