[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

[Neal Evenhuis]

My goodness. All of this discussion is based simply on the fact that botanists and zoologists use some of the same terms and phrases of nomenclature differently. The ironic thing is so much discussion has ensued when just a few days ago, David Hawkeworth's new list of bionomenclatural terms was announced. If everyone would just simply read the definitions of all the terms you are unclear about, there would be little discussion left -- Oh ... I guess maybe some people will still *want* to argue. We can't stop that....

Here's the link again for those who forgot about it or ever bothered to download the pdf and read it.

http://www.gbif.org/communications/resources/print-and-online-resources/bionomenclature/

One things that *does* seem to be apparent from this discussion on different uses of the same nomenclatural terms -- it will be a very long time before a unified biocode will ever gain traction.

-Neal

________________________________________


On 5/29/2010 11:00 AM, Curtis Clark wrote:
> On 5/29/2010 5:47 AM, Kim van der Linde wrote:
>> 1 type,  2 description,  2 combination:  objective synonyms
>>
>
> In botany, the second description would be an emendation, if the new
> combination cited the basionym, and of no nomenclatural meaning. If the
> basionym were not cited, the new name would be illegitimate upon
> publication ("illegitimate" is called something different under ICZN).
>
> I'd be interested in an example of an objective synonym from any of you
> who exclude new combinations as synonyms.
>