[Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early view" example...
fwelter at gwdg.de
Tue May 11 15:09:39 CDT 2021
just to respond on that detail you posted.
Am 10.05.2021 um 20:55 schrieb Richard Pyle via Taxacom:
> At the former end of the spectrum (two different Editions of the
"same" book), if an author proposes/establishes a new taxon name within
the first Edition (Aus bus sp. nov.), and then includes the same (or
even modified) description and same name in the Second edition
(including an explicit indication of "sp. nov."), I suppose most
taxonomists would treat the name included in the second Edition as a
homonym (i.e., distinct proposal for a new name identical to an existing
name from a previous work).
I did not answer immediately because I thought the statement deviated
from the initial question. But now I see now that this question has been
discussed further on.
A homonym is by definition a separately available name.
I agree with Thomas that such a name is not necessarily new under the
Code, just because of a declaration "new". Such a declaration, even if
intentional, can be in error. Even if combined with a type designation
different from the original type, both the declaration "new" and the
type designation can be in error. This depends on the individual case.
We need to address this in Code-5, however not in the Chapter on
publication (where the early view question should be placed), but on the
Chapter on availability of names and nomenclatural acts, and there in a
new set of provisions on subsequent usages. These are two separate debates.
More information about the Taxacom