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

[Stephen Thorpe]

>The real question in my mind, is the definition of "disregarded"
I don't see a problem here ... it clearly means that such species names (junior 
homonyms s.lat., combined with generic homonyms)  need not and should not be 
replaced (but, of course, the junior generic homonym must be replaced), in the 
same way that not all other cases of homonymy should be replaced (e.g., defunct 
secondary homonyms, and synonymized generic homonyms)...

the Code was written for taxonomists, not for bioinformaticians ...

Stephen




________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Tony.Rees at csiro.au; 
dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 10 November, 2010 12:25:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes


There are number of ambiguities in the zoological Code, and the ICZN 
Commissioners are acutely aware of them. With luck, they will be largely 
eliminated (and few new ambiguities created) in the 5th Edition of the Code.
 
The real question in my mind, is the definition of "disregarded".
 
Aloha,
Rich


________________________________
From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
>Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:21 PM
>To: Richard Pyle; Tony.Rees at csiro.au; dipteryx at freeler.nl; 
>taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes
>
>
>actually, the ICZN glossary is just sloppy here:
>
>(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
>
>SAME generic name could mean either:
>
>(1) same spelling, different taxa; or
>
>(2) same spelling and same taxa
>
>Article 57.8.1 is clearer:
>
>Homonymy between identical species-group names in combination (originally or 
>subsequently) with homonymous generic names having the same spelling but 
>established for different nominal genera is to be disregarded
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
>To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au; dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Sent: Wed, 10 November, 2010 11:39:28 AM
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Species-level homonyms - between/within codes
>
>Hi Tony,
>
>> 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.
>
>I completely agree!  I just wanted to make sure people were not mis-quoting
>or mis-representing the zoological Code.  I wrote the bulk of the note this
>morning (before your post referencing Art. 57.8.1), then sent it when I got
>to work -- but before I saw your aforementioned Post citing Art. 57.8.1.
>Basically, by the time I sent my message, you had already made the point I
>was trying to make.  So I think we're in complete agreement.
>
>> 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??
>
>Again, I agree completely!
>
>Aloha,
>Rich
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>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
>
>