[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

[Geoffrey Read]

In response to Thomas Pape, concerning whether the concept of synonymy can
apply to the name element 'specific name' of ICZN notoriety.

The 'specific name' definition (I'll call the 'specific name' the
'epithet' so it's more distinctive)  is not relevant because, as clearly
stated in the definition of a synonym, a synonym denotes 'the same
taxonomic taxon'. There is a definition in ICZN of a 'taxonomic taxon' at
family, genus or species level and it is denoted by a *valid name*, which
is, for a species, a binomen (this all by definitions such as Art.5.1 and
Glossary).

Consider the epithet. It is not a valid name and is obviously not a
binomen. It is only an *element* of the binomen. It cannot stand alone as
a uninominal, and does not denote a taxonomic taxon at the species level
(a requirement for being a synonym (fide ICZN) - see above), only binomens
can do that.   Therefore epithets (aka 'specific names'), the second
element of a name, don't enter the picture when we are talking of synonymy
of species-level taxa names, only binomens are relevant.

Thomas said (for a recombination Aus bus Smith, 1900 and Cus bus (Smith,
1900 ): "If we look at the two occurrences of the species‑group name
"bus", we are looking at the same name, and as such there is no synonymy.

Of course the epithet is the same. That's trivial. There are thousands of
identical epithets which are elements in species names across many phyla.
But epithets aren't valid names for species, only binomens are, otherwise
we'd be in enormous trouble (with all those competing identical
australis's, antarctica's, vulgaris's, etc).

Thomas said: "the concept of synonymy may be applied to more than just
scientific names. Thus, it applies also to specific names."

I have tried to demonstrate that in the current ICZN neither statement is
true, IMO.

Geoff

>>>> The 'specific name' definition is not relevant. [Geoff Read]
> Yes it is.
> The definition of synonym runs:
> "synonym, n.    Each of two or more names of the same rank used to
> denote the same taxonomic taxon."
> Note that this definition does NOT give: "Each of two or more
> *scientific* names ...". From this follows that the concept of synonymy
> may be applied to more than just scientific names. Thus, it applies also
> to specific names. If the specific names are the same, synonymy becomes
> irrelevant; if they are different, synonymy is an option.
> Going back to my example of Aus bus Smith, 1900 and Cus bus (Smith,
> 1900), these are two different *scientific names* for a taxonomic
> species with the same description and the same name-bearing type.
> Clearly, as such they are synonyms. If we look at the two occurrences of
> the species-group name "bus", we are looking at the same name, and as
> such there is no synonymy.
> Francisco expressed this as: "In the eyes of a bioinformatician, Uncia
> uncia and Felis uncia are synonyms. For those who intend to apply the
> ICZN Code's definition, not."
> Kim expressed this as: "1 type,  1 description,  2 combinations: not
> synonyms".
> /Thomas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read
> Sent: 31. maj 2010 09:52
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Objective synonyms?
>
> Posting from my workplace on this rare occasion. My views only.
>
>>>> On 29/05/2010 at 9:59 p.m., "Thomas Pape" <TPape at snm.ku.dk> wrote:
>> As for synonym, this is defined as:
>> "synonym, n. --- Each of two or more names of the same rank used to
> denote the
>> same taxonomic taxon."
>> Take note of the "two or more names", but be careful with the concept
> of a
>> "name" at the species level, as this easily creates confusion. The
> ICodeZN
>> clearly defines a "specific name" as: "The second name in a binomen
> and in a
>> trinomen". Therefore, given Aus bus Smith, 1900 and Cus bus (Smith,
> 1900)
>> with the same original description, the specific name "bus" is one and
> the
>> same specific name and as such there is no synonymy (no "two or more
> names").
>
> The 'specific name' definition is not relevant. Francisco
> Welter-Shultes, who mentions this posting approvingly, makes the same
> mistake as Thomas does above.
>
> It's very straightforward. The ICZN definition of synonym is referring
> to a 'taxonomic taxon', which in this argument is at the species level.
> The definition of scientific name of a species is, quote from ICZN, "two
> names (a binomen)", and similarly the definition of a species name is
> that it is the genus and specific name combination, two names. It is
> bizarre to advocate that 'name' in this context is referring to anything
> other than a 'scientific name of a species', which is a *binomen*, or
> option 2, the 'species name' which is also defined as a *binomen*.
> Obviously the 'specific name', the second name in the binomen, that
> Thomas and Francisco concentrate on, is not the scientific name of a
> species, it is merely an epithet, only part of the scientific name. Thus
> if one wrongly uses the definition of 'specific name', the epithet, in
> this context of synonymy, rather than that of 'scientific name', or
> 'species name', the result will be strangeness, like thoughts that new
> combinations cannot be objective synonyms and similar interpretations
> that have no basis.
>
> Francisco Welter-Shultes said, "The term "objective synonym" as used and
> defined in the ICZN Code is restricted to nominal taxa. Under the ICZN
> Code this term cannot be used for species names."
>
> That is incorrect.  The definition says the synonym *denotes* the
> nominal taxon, which is a rather different thing.  The synonym is the
> name, not the taxon, which is an animal and cannot possibly be a synonym
> of anything.
>
> Geoff
>