[Taxacom] Can botanical family names be based on a rejected genus name?

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Aug 25 17:25:18 CDT 2017


Wow!  Is anyone with access to the full PDF willing to send me a copy?  

One of my biggest complaints about all the various "estimated total species of life on Earth" publications is that they often loosely refer to "species of life on Earth", but then in the fine print somewhere make some reference to something along the lines of "Oh, but Prokaryotes aren't really part of our analysis 'cause we're not sure what's going on with them, but there's probably a bunch of them too" (paraphrasing here, of course).  

What caught my attention about the abstract that Paul just forwarded was partially the "1 to 6 billion" bit; but actually more interesting was the 70-90% bacteria bit.  While I might be a little hesitant to accept the ~300-600 million non-bacteria (Really? Yeah, there are definitely a bunch of mites and nematodes and fungi and protists and stuff, but people thought Terry Erwin was crazy at ~100M total....) -- I'm much more intrigued by the 70-90% proportional estimate.  Obviously, we have a hard enough time defining what we mean by "species" within even well-known groups like birds and fishes; trying to establish a notion of "species" that would be harmonious among both Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes is probably best left to those who like to count angels on the head of a pin. But still... I'd love to see the full paper to see how they came up with their numbers, and especially how they establish a working definition of "species" that applies across all life.  

Taken to the extreme, one could argue there are ~7.5 billion species of what we now refer to as "Homo sapiens L." (subtracting out the identical twins, of course).  I'm increasingly convinced that the continuum between that "splitter" extreme and the other "lumper" extreme (i.e., one global species encompassing everything) is a lot smoother than most people feel comfortable admitting, and that some sort of universal inflection point along this continuum that we can point to and declare (semi-objectively) "Species!" will not likely be found even within the well-known groups, let alone across the entire spectrum of stuff we call "life". But I digress.

Yes, I realize this was an overly soap-boxy pontification to simply ask "Hey, can anyone send me the PDF?"  But I had ten minutes to kill, so I succumbed to my more primal taxonosophical tendencies.

Aloha,
Rich


Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator | Associate Zoologist | Dive Safety Officer
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
BishopMuseum.org

Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf
> Of Paul Kirk
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 11:17 AM
> To: Tony Rees; John McNeill
> Cc: John McNeill; taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Can botanical family names be based on a rejected
> genus name?
> 
> With at least 1 billion species to name:
> 
> 
> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/693564
> 
> I think we need to stop discussing these 'non-homonyms' 😉
> 
> Have a good weekend,
> 
> the other Paul
> ________________________________
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of Tony
> Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
> Sent: 25 August 2017 22:05
> To: John McNeill
> Cc: John McNeill; taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Can botanical family names be based on a rejected
> genus name?
> 
> Thanks very much Karen, Paul, John et al. for answering my question and
> clarifying some of the more subtle differences between the botanical and
> zoological Codes in this respect.
> 
> Best regards - Tony
> 
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
> [https://aboutme.imgix.net/background/users/t/o/n/tonyrees_1442476357_2
> 7.jpg?q=80&dpr=1&auto=format&fit=crop&w=250&h=140&crop=faces]<https:
> //about.me/TonyRees>
> 
> Tony Rees - New South Wales, Australia |
> about.me<https://about.me/TonyRees>
> about.me
> Tony is a software engineer in New South Wales, Australia. Visit Tony’s
> website from their page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 August 2017 at 01:06, John McNeill <johnm at rom.on.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > As others have pointed out, the short answer to the question “Can
> > botanical family names be based on a rejected genus name?” is “Yes”. A
> > name rejected in favour of another (Art. 14) or rejected outright
> > (Art. 56) is not, thereby, made illegitimate. Consequently, if
> > otherwise legitimate, a family name based on it will also be legitimate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Indeed at the Shenzhen Congress it was agreed to add a Note to the
> > *Code* to make this clearer in the case of names rejected outright.
> >
> >
> >
> > As noted by Paul van Rijckevorsel, *Aytonia* J.R. Forst. & G. Forst.
> > (1776) is a legitimate name, predating the parahomonym *Aitonia* Thunb.
> > (1780), and so there is no obstacle to the use of *Aytoniaceae*.
> >
> >
> >
> > The nomenclatural details from Index Nominum Genericorum online (with
> > only mild inconsistency) are:
> >
> >
> >
> > *Aytonia* J. R. Forster et J. G. A. Forster, Char. Gen. [147]. 1 Mar 1776.
> >  T.: * A. rupestris* J. R. et J. G. A. Forster nom. rej. vs.
> > *Plagiochasma* Lehmann et Lindenberg 1832 (*nom. cons.*)
> > HEPAT.-AYTONIACEAE (12) 18 Feb 2014
> >
> > *Aitonia* Thunberg, Physiogr. Sälsk. Handl. 1(3): 166. 1780 ('1776')
> > (non
> > *Aytonia* J. R. Forster et J. G. A. Forster 1775).
> >  T.: * A. capensis* Thunberg
> > ≡ *Nymania* S. O. Lindberg 1868
> > PHAN.-MELIACEAE (10) 9 Feb 1996
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers, John
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> Taxacom Info Page - mailman.nhm.ku.edu Mailing
> Lists<http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics. Named and brought to life
> by Drs. Richard Zander and Patricia Eckel, Taxacom began its peripatetic
> existence on ...
> 
> 
> 
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> [http://taxacom.markmail.org/images/hdi_board.gif]<http://taxacom.markma
> il.org/>
> 
> Taxacom Home - MarkMail - Community
> libraries<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>
> taxacom.markmail.org
> MarkMail™ is developed and hosted by MarkLogic Corporation. MarkMail is a
> free service for searching mailing list archives, with huge advantages over
> traditional ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu To
> subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> Taxacom Info Page - mailman.nhm.ku.edu Mailing
> Lists<http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom>
> mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics. Named and brought to life
> by Drs. Richard Zander and Patricia Eckel, Taxacom began its peripatetic
> existence on ...
> 
> 
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu To
> subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.



More information about the Taxacom mailing list