[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

Bevan Weir WeirB at landcareresearch.co.nz
Tue Jun 5 01:07:54 CDT 2012


Maybe I am missing something here but here is a recent example of what I did in this situation under the (former) botanical code:

http://twitpic.com/9syi2f  The later homonym is simply illegitimate.

In this case it was just the same epithet which was very obviously named after the host plant, persimmon (kaki in Japanese).


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Francisco Welter-Schultes
Sent: Tuesday, 5 June 2012 12:38 p.m.
To: Richard Petit
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

I intended to respond to Stephen's thoughts about more general aspects of the problem, it was not my intention and it would not be my style to say something in an indirect form.

I said that the Code gives no guide, and so it is natural that various disciplines developed different traditions. I think none of these is correct or incorrect, they are just different. The names as you cited them are entirely Code-compliant because the Code does not provide rules on such cases. Any interpretation that is possible under the Code, is Code compliant.

In the discipline I am familiar with the scientists would probably have applied a different interpretation. Such things have historic reasons.

Why should the exchange of different views across disciplines become a mess? At the best we can find some minimum standards that are applied in all disciplines. A multidisciplinary forum is the right place to understand differences between disciplines in such interpretations.


> I should have known better than to step into what has become a mess.
> Now Francisco is supposing that some people (I am not sure if he was
> pointing directly at me but that conclusion seems unavoidable given
> the context) cannot distinguish between Code-compliant new names and
> nomina nuda. Since Francisco specifically refers to my Japanese
> examples it is inescapable that he questions that the names I
> referenced were Code-compliant.  I somehow doubt that he will accept
> my assurance that they are available names although in common usage.

There is no reason for such doubts.
As I said, I did not say that the Code has any rules to support the statement that these names, as used in your discipline, are not Code-compliant.

> As for the two European examples mentioned by Francisco. I assume that
> both names were introduced in the same genus.  In many such cases they
> were not.
> This is important as the second (or even more) usage, if considered
> available (as I believe it/them to be) exists for purposes of homonymy.
> I am finished with this subject and apologize to all list users for my
> verbosity. I will be pleased to correspond on this subject
> individually with anyone.
> dick p.


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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning:  This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz

More information about the Taxacom mailing list