[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

It looks to me that there are two points worth making.

* To those who are arguing (their own brand of) logic 
rather than reading, it may be good to point to the definition
of "binomen/binominal name" in the Glossary (ICZN). I hope 
it is clear that that it is silly to argue that a new 
binominal name is not a name because it (also) is a 
combination including a previously established specific name.

* As I noted before it is quite dangerous to make any statement 
on more than one Code: each Code uses terms in a way entirely 
its own. I am now noticing a big difference between the zoological 
and botanical use of synonym: the zoological Code restricts it 
to names of the same rank, which is definitely not the case 
in botany. It looks to me that this means that
"homotypic synonym" in the Glossary of the ICBN is inaccurate.
To use the example of Thomas G. Lammers: 
- Lobelia graminea Lam. and 
- Lobelia cardinalis subsp. graminea (Lam.) McVaugh 
are homotypic synomyms, as I hope all botanists will agree. 
However, both "nomenclatural synonym" and "objective synonym" 
are defined as names of the same rank. Thus, nomenclatural 
synonyms are always homotypic synonyms, but the reverse is 
not necessarily true (thus, they are not equivalent, 
interchangable terms).Only when homotypic synonyms are of 
the same rank, may they be called nomenclatural synonyms.

[ BTW, reading Art. 45, ICZN, it strikes me that I made an 
error in calling a specific name a "species-group name". 
>From Art. 45 I conclude that /Uncia uncia/ is a species-group 
name, but /uncia/ is not. If this is correct then there is 
an inaccuracy in the ICZN Glossary as well: the entry on 
"new combination" should read:
"The first combination of a generic name and a previously 
established specific name." or perhaps "The first combination
of a generic name and the specific name of a previously 
established species-group name." which would bring it in 
line with the entry for "combination". ]

Paul