[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:41 AM,  <Tony.Rees at csiro.au> wrote:

> Suggested solutions, anyone?

To begin to answer my own question:

Code Articles 51.2 and 51.3 refer to these new names as "changed combinations". Presumably they thus share a type (where designated) but are excluded from "objective synonyms" as defined by ICZN, although the combinations are indeed synonyms as per glossary entry Synonym: "Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon" - refer Thomas Pape's most recent message.

Here are some options:

- Combination synonym
- Synonym (genus transfer)
- Synonym (new combination) / Synonym (original combination) / Synonym (previous combination)
- Synonym (alternative placement) / Synonym (original placement)

I thought about "sobjective synonym" given all the angst this topic has apparently created, but then thought better of it...

I think the botanists simply use comb. nov. and related terms (Jim?) and regard them all as synonyms anyway.

Regards - Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Croft [mailto:jim.croft at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 9:32 AM
To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart)
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

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)