[Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early view" example...
deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Tue May 11 15:21:45 CDT 2021
Thanks, Francisco -- and yes I agree that there are two conflated issues; namely:
1) When to treat two separate documents as representing the "same" work, vs. "different" works; and
2) When to treat two separate usages of a same or similarly-spelled name as the "same" name or as "different" names (e.g., homonyms).
I conflated the two in my post where I suggested an example of a same or similar name proposed as new in two separate "Editions" of a book with the same title might be regarded as homonyms. I see now that example only confused the discussion. I think both issues are important, and I would like to see a move towards harmonization of the Codes on both issues. Part of my interest in this is understanding the phycological/mycological/botanical approach in terms of whether the ambiguities have been solved explicitly, or whether the ambiguity exists but is not seen as problematic. There seems to be some element of both in play.
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: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> Francisco Welter-Schultes via Taxacom
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:10 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early
> view" example...
> 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.
> Best wishes
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-
> owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can
> be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
More information about the Taxacom