[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

[Curtis Clark]

On 5/29/2010 2:00 PM, Michael A. Ivie wrote:
> This is really very simple -- the first question was specifically about
> animals, it was answered correctly (twice), but then botanists started
> mucking it up with incorrectness.
That's not a very collegial statement. The responses of botanists (which 
are in fact correct about plants) confirmed my impression that this is 
an area where botanists and zoologists have different viewpoints, but 
aren't aware of it. I see it as an opportunity for education. I'm sorry 
you feel differently about it.

> Rules: Any time a question about animal nomenclature gets answered with
> "According to the Botanical Code" or "In Botany we" you should just stop
> reading, because the rest will simply not apply to the question, and
> almost always be both wrong and off-topic.
Perhaps you should have stopped reading, then. My larger question ("Is 
it just me, or do all botanists misunderstand zoological practice) was 
answered quite nicely.

Fo anyone still reading, the answer I have come up with, from responses 
here and on Wikipedia, is "Many zoologists assert that new combinations 
aren't synonyms, and a fair number of those assert that they are 
correct. A few zoologists believe that new combinations are synonyms, 
but few if any of them are willing to strongly defend that view. The 
Code has nothing to say beyond a glossary definition, that can be 
interpreted in different ways."
> Any time someone defends being
> wrong about the basics by saying "go beyond the basics" you can also stop
> reading.
>    

With this I agree, since with nomenclature the basics are all there is.

-- 
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Director, I&IT Web Development                   +1 909 979 6371
University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona