[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

Tue Jun 1 00:46:01 CDT 2010

that be taxonomy ... mixed it and your nomenclaturally skrewed ... ;-)

Paul

.. trying to avoid at breakfast that which befell Rich ... but with muesli and milk (far healthier than soda)

________________________________

From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Tue 01/06/2010 02:48
To: Jim Croft; Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

>to me they are are just a particular class of nomenclatural synonym, being based on the same type
But that's just the point, they are and they aren't! Aus bus Smith and Cus bus (Smith) may be based on the same type specimen of bus, but may also based on different type species of Aus and Cus!

________________________________
From: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tue, 1 June, 2010 1:31:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

a new combination or comb. nov., like a sp. nov., is only new or nov.
the first time it is made... funnily enough...  similarly nom. nov,

thereafter it is just a comb., one of several classes of synonyms.
the parenthetical authorship is a useful flag for this status, if for
some reason you might be interested in such things...

importantly, comb. nov. is an attribute of the publishing act, in
particular the the first place in which a combination is formally
proposed, not of the name, nor of the taxon.

to me they are are just a particular class of nomenclatural synonym,
being based on the same type.  for this reason I do not mind homotypic
as an alternative.  (don't like objective/subjective, because as has
been pointed out ad nauseum, there is an element of personal
preference into which genus a species could be placed, but none in the
epithet - the concept is clear but the descriptor is ambiguous).

rule #2 of taxonomy: follow the type

(the nym I like most is the nom. nov. - a taxonomic/heterotypic
synonym a new epithet coined when the required combination is
preoccupied.  a common practice is to use the name of the original
author of the unusable epithet.  so civilized...)

jim

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:32 AM,  <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:41 AM,  <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:
>
>> Suggested solutions, anyone?
>
> To begin to answer my own question:
>
> Code Articles 51.2 and 51.3 refer to these new names as "changed combinations". Presumably they thus share a type (where designated) but are excluded from "objective synonyms" as defined by ICZN, although the combinations are indeed synonyms as per glossary entry Synonym: "Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon" - refer Thomas Pape's most recent message.
>
> Here are some options:
>
> - Combination synonym
> - Synonym (genus transfer)
> - Synonym (new combination) / Synonym (original combination) / Synonym (previous combination)
> - Synonym (alternative placement) / Synonym (original placement)
>
> I thought about "sobjective synonym" given all the angst this topic has apparently created, but then thought better of it...
>
> I think the botanists simply use comb. nov. and related terms (Jim?) and regard them all as synonyms anyway.
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 9:32 AM
> To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart)
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Objective synonyms?
>
> yep...  everyone switch to the botanical code...  :)
>
> We have long recognised the three classes you describe and we do and
> show this through use and insistence on parenthetical authorship to
> show both the the transferred and the transferee.
>
> It is not all about glory seeking ego as some uncharitable zoologists
> have suggested.  It is about the pursuit of  'truth, justice and the
> taxonomy way'...
>
> In particular, the combination genus + species *is* the species name
> and the epithet can not travel in isolation from its genus, just as
> the author of the epithet can not travel in isolation from the author
> who reassigned it to another genus.
>
> The idea of combining the codes is a great and admirable thing, but
> from a botany perspective this is a die in the ditch issue.  Nobody
> wants to go backwards.  I reality, I think zoologists do the same
> thing (more or less) but they just do not regard this piece of
> information as important and junk it.
>
> jim (wondering if Linnaeus had any idea at the time what a mess he was creating)
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:41 AM,  <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:
>
>> Suggested solutions, anyone?
>
> _____________________
> Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
> http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
> 'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point
> of doubtful sanity.'
>  - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)
>

--
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point
of doubtful sanity.'
- Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. 

Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.

CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.

**************************************************************************