[Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early view" example...
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Tue May 11 18:57:02 CDT 2021
Addressing this issue again in general terms, the prospects for a logically watertight system of nomenclature (i.e. one and only one correct answer for any scenario) are tiny and it would add vastly more complexity without much gain. The traditional approach is simply to allow a little bit of slack (ambiguity/subjectivity), but if an actual problem (dispute) arises, then refer it to the Commission for a ruling. This has worked reasonably well in the past, but I suspect that the Commission is now trying to minimise the amount of work that it has to do, so that may be a reason for a more rigorous Code? Another factor might be the rise of computer databases which don't handle ambiguity/subjectivity very well and which lead to a sort of "you must work out every last detail" approach. For example, we simply don't need to know the exact publication dates for most names, but if your database has a field for this, then it seems like it needs to be filled in across the board!Stephen
On Wednesday, 12 May 2021, 08:22:01 am NZST, Richard Pyle via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
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.
Taxacom Mailing List
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
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