[Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes

Tue Nov 9 17:07:33 CST 2010

the point is that the Code defines homonyms at the species level thusly (my caps 
on SAME):

(3) In the species group: each of two or more available specific or subspecific 
names having
the same spelling, or spellings deemed under Article 58 to be the same, and 
established for different nominal taxa, and either originally (primary homonymy) 
or subsequently (secondary homonymy) combined with the SAME generic name [Art. 
53.3]

generic homonyms (e.g. Noctua) are not the SAME generic name, so there is no 
species homonymy (s.str.)

so 'homonym' as defined by the Code is not homonymy (s.lat.), i.e. identical 
name strings

________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org; dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 10 November, 2010 11:33:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes

Dear Rich, list members,

I think there is a disconnect between what the Code governs i.e. nomenclatural 
acts - creation and usage of family-group, genus-group, and species-group names 
(i.e., the epithet portion only), and the combination of genus-group name and 
species epithet (i.e. binomen) that for practical purposes constitutes the 
actual species name (taxon name at species level), but are considered to be 
taxonomic as opposed to nomenclatural actions. Thus it is perhaps not surprising 
that there are few references in the Code to the nature and treatment of 
binomial combinations, and why such binomial homonyms as may exist are not 
included in the definitions reproduced below. Simply because something is not 
defined in the Code does not preclude it from existing outside the scope of 
governance of the Code (which is confined to nomenclature), I would submit.

In other words I have not seen any compelling argument that binomial homonyms do 
not exist in zoology, and therefore if they exist in zoology, they can equally 
exist between Codes as well - unless someone would like to put the 
counter-argument??

On one other point - the link to the synonyms page previously posted may have 
split over more than one line in some persons' email receipts according to the 
whims of the email package used. If you tried the link and did not get a result, 
either manually add in the missing portion that appears on the next line to the 
URL as automatically created, or go to the "IRMNG homonyms" page:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/irmng/homonyms.htm

and click on the link "Current IRMNG homonyms list - species level", which will 
take you to the same place.

Regards - Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Pyle
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2010 7:38 AM
> To: dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes
> 
> 
> These links might help to clear up some confusion about zoological
> homonyms:
> 
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=52
> 
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=53
> 
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=57
> 
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=59
> 
> Also, these definitions from the Glossay of the Zoological Code might be
> useful:
> 
> homonym, n.
>    (1) In the family group: each of two or more available names having
> the
> same spelling, or differing only in suffix, and denoting different nominal
> taxa. (2) In the genus group: each of two or more available names having
> the
> same spelling, and denoting different nominal taxa. (3) In the species
> group: each of two or more available specific or subspecific names having
> the same spelling, or spellings deemed under Article 58 to be the same,
> and
> established for different nominal taxa, and either originally (primary
> homonymy) or subsequently (secondary homonymy) combined with the same
> generic name [Art. 53.3]. For examples, see Article 53.1 for family-group
> names, Article 53.2 for genus-group names, and Article 53.3 for
> species-group names.
> 
> junior homonym
>    Of two homonyms: the later established, or in the case of simultaneous
> establishment the one not given precedence under Article 24.
> 
> primary homonym
>    Each of two or more identical specific or subspecific names
> established
> for different nominal taxa and originally combined with the same generic
> name [Art. 57.2]. For variant spellings deemed to be identical see Article
> 58.
> 
> secondary homonym
>    Each of two or more identical specific or subspecific names
> established
> for different nominal taxa and originally combined with different generic
> names but subsequently combined with the same generic name [Art. 57.3].
> For
> variant spellings deemed to be identical see Article 58.
> 
> senior homonym
>    Of two homonyms: the first established, or in the case of simultaneous
> establishment the one given precedence under Article 24.
> 
> 
> Perhaps someone can provide similar definitions and Articles from the
> Botanical Code and Bacterial Code for comparison purposes?  As far as I
> understand the different Codes, the zoological Code differs only in
> distinguishing "Primary Homonyms" from "Secondary Homonyms" -- which is a
> natural cosequence of not regarding name-combinations as Code-governed
> entities (except when secondary homonymy is involved).
> 
> 
> The word I have been using to refer to all "collisions" of text-strings
> purported to represent scientific names (cross-code; misspellings of one
> name colliding with the correct spelling of another; two misspelled names
> colliding with each other, etc.) is "homograph".  I did not invent this
> term; it was suggested to me by Dave Remsen.
> 
> Aloha,
> Rich
> 
> Richard L. Pyle, PhD
> Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
> Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
> Dive Safety Officer
> Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
> 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
> Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
> email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
> http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> > dipteryx at freeler.nl
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 12:12 AM
> > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes
> >
> > Van: Tony.Rees at csiro.au [mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au]
> > Verzonden: di 9-11-2010 10:37
> >
> > > I realise, they are not technically homonyms under the [zoological]
> > > code which indicates that species level homonyms (except in
> > the same
> > > genus) do not officially exist, however they are binomial names
> > > representing the case of the same name used for different taxa
> > > (homonyms in the popular
> > > sense) which is the purpose of my disambiguation page. If it is
> > > preferred that they are not termed "homonyms" then perhaps
> > there is a
> > > more appropriate term?
> >
> > > Regards - Tony
> >
> > ***
> > That is a good question. Actually it is worse than that.
> > Under the zoological Code they represent binominal names
> > (binomina; note the -n-!) with the same spelling, but they
> > are not the same names.
> >
> > As each Code governs only its own nomenclatural universe, the
> > term "homonym"
> > is defined separately for each separate nomenclatural
> > universe. Thus there can be no homonym across more than one
> > Code, not without either changing the existing Codes or
> > creating a new universe and defining new terms.
> >
> > A neutral term would be "names with the same spelling", but
> > note that this excludes chresonyms. Even more neutral would
> > be "text strings with the same spelling", but this may cause
> > problems with orthographical variants/variant spellings.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with
> > either of these methods:
> >
> > (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here