[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

[Jim Croft]

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)