[Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes
David Remsen (GBIF)
dremsen at gbif.org
Wed Nov 10 06:06:05 CST 2010
You might consider using the term "homograph" to refer to identical
spellings with different meanings. I think this best fits the intent
here and one I and others have used in the past in this sense.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homograph if you wish to consider it.
Incidentally, I also use the word "polyseme" to describe what is
meant by different taxon concepts that share the same name.
On Nov 9, 2010, at 10:37 AM, <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
>> So, taking the example of
>> Aricia brunnescens Zetterstedt, 1845
>> Aricia brunnescens Harrison, 1906
>> These species names cannot be homonyms as they are animal names
>> (if these were plant names, they would be homonyms). The relevant
>> here are the specific names "brunnescens": since they are in
>> genera the homonymy is to be disregarded.
> I realise, they are not technically homonyms under the [zoological]
> code which indicates that species level homonyms (except in the same
> genus) do not officially exist, however they are binomial names
> representing the case of the same name used for different taxa
> (homonyms in the popular sense) which is the purpose of my
> disambiguation page. If it is preferred that they are not termed
> "homonyms" then perhaps there is a more appropriate term?
> Regards - Tony
> 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