[Taxacom] Objective synonyms?

[Jim Croft]

as a botanist, I have absolutely not idea what that statement means...

which means it it is profoundly significant, or, it is a non sequitur...

as a botanist, I am going with the latter...

beyond the universal principle of first in best dressed, the different
type species of two (or more) taxonomically contending genera have
absolutely nothing to do with the type specimen of a species in either
genus.  typification is working at two different levels - an
arbitrarily selected specimen anchoring the name of the species
epithet; and an independent equally arbitrary species anchoring the
name of the genus.

...

... just realised the irony of associating typification with the
notion of objectivity - there is nothing more subject to more personal
prejudice, preference and whim that the selection of one from among
the many to be the type. :)  ... but once the selection has been made,
that's it, end of discussion ... :/  all the more reason for
deprecating/banning the use of the terms objective and subjective in
formal nomenclaturespeak...

jim

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>to me they are are just a particular class of nomenclatural synonym, being
>> based on the same type
> But that's just the point, they are and they aren't! Aus bus Smith and Cus
> bus (Smith) may be based on the same type specimen of bus, but may also
> based on different type species of Aus and Cus!

-- 
_________________
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)