[Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early view" example...
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue May 11 14:05:27 CDT 2021
I was very sloppy in the last sentence of my previous post to this list, and several people have commented to me about it off list. To set the record straight, when I wrote:
"But is also important to sort out (and, in my view, harmonize phycological/mycological/botanical approaches with zoological approaches)."
I did **NOT** mean to imply that the botanical Code should be changed to match the zoological Code! I think the problem was the word "with", which should have been "and", and also that the two Codes could have appeared in either sequence (e.g., "in my view, harmonize zoological approaches and phycological/mycological/botanical approaches").
In fact, my actual thinking is that, as we draft the next edition of the ICZN Code, I would like to see the draft incorporate elements of the Botanical code in cases where some of the problems we've discussed have been adequately solved in that Code, and less so in the zoological Code. In other cases, where there are problems shared by both Codes, I would like to see communication that facilitates harmonization *between* the two codes in solving the same problem in the same way.
I'm very sorry for the confusion, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that I did not intend to suggest that the botanical Code needed to be changed to be more like the zoological Code!
(except, of course, when the zoological Code solves certain things more effectively! :-) )
Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115; Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at 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: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 6:50 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early
> view" example...
> > This is not a problem in the /ICNafp/: if two 'names', in different
> > publications, have the same spelling and the same type this is later usage.
> OK, so in ICNafp, the same type means the same name. What about older
> names? Does the requirement for an explicitly fixed type go all the way back
> to 1753 (e.g., to all Linnaeus plant names have explicitly fixed types?) Or,
> can older names still be validly published even without explicit type fixation
> (as is the case in Zoology)?
> > In the /ICNafp/, homonyms can exist only if they have different types.
> That's my own operational approach within zoology as well. But the
> problem is, as noted, with early literature, in the era before types were really
> a "thing". In such cases it's often not clear whether two names should be
> regarded as homonyms or as subsequent usages. This digresses from the
> original question I was interested in (which was more about deciding when
> two documents represent different variants of the "same" work vs. two
> different works -- but I set us down this path by introducing a nomenclatural
> issue within my original query). But is also important to sort out (and, in my
> view, harmonize phycological/mycological/botanical approaches with
> zoological approaches).
More information about the Taxacom