[Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early view" example...

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Wed May 12 05:59:09 CDT 2021

Thanks, Paul!

RE: the type of an isonym:  I suppose that no subsequent usage of any name (isonym or not) has a "type", strictly speaking.  But if I refer to the type species of a genus, it remains as the type of any usage of that "same" name.  This sounds like a semantics issue, but while type designations are strictly applied to the "name", as it is established in the protologue, I think it's fair to say that the "type" is at least conceptually represented for any subsequent usage of a name.  This is what I meant by "names with the same type" -- I probably should have phrased that as something like "two names are not considered homonyms if they are referrable to the same type"; as opposed to two names that are homonyms, which each have different types.

RE: homotypic synonyms -- in zoology we don't generally use that term (though I think we should), which I gather in non-zoological contexts usually refers to the "same" epithet combined with different genera (e.g., a basionym is a homotypic synonym of a subsequent combination).  However, we do have the notion of "objective synonyms", such as when the same specimen has been designated as the name-bearing type for two different species-group epithets (with different spellings, authorships, protologues*, etc.)  This is not common, but sometimes happens by accident, and sometimes is done on purpose.  But I wonder:  do you have situations in Botany where synonyms are "homotypic", even if they are not the "same" epithet combined with different genera (i.e., in cases where they are truly different epithets)?


*We don't use the term "protologue" much in zoology either, but again we probably should.

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
> Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 9:03 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early
> view" example...
> Op 11/05/2021 om 18:50 schreef Richard Pyle via Taxacom:
> > 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 ICFafp, the requirement (as it exists at present) that the name of a
> new taxon must have a type starts at "on or after 1 January 1958". And,
> obviously, older names don't necessarily have been assigned types (Linnaean
> names are not a good example, since these have been closely scrutinized).
> But, older names can be assigned types, and then it does work.
> I guess I should point to two conceptual wrinkles:
> * only a name (scientific name) can have a type, and a later isonym (later
> usage) is not a name: therefore a later isonym cannot actually have a type.
> So definition-wise there is a substantial conceptual hole in "names with the
> same type". To be more accurate an exercise in conditional logic seems
> called for (something like "that would have the same type if both were to be
> names ...").
> * there are situations (that don't appear involved here) where names have
> the same type by definition (that is, they are homotypic names), regardless
> of the fact whether either name actually has a type or not. So it is quite
> possible to have untypified homotypic names.
> Paul
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mailing list