[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Yes, that is a possibility, however no sign of it here (Boeseman's 1957 paper, i.e. instance #2):

http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/150426

I have not, however, seen the "correction notice circulated by Boeseman" as cited in Eschmeyer's Catalog.

Regards - Tony

From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 4 June 2012 12:13 PM
To: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

I expect that it wasn't independent! The second guy probably thought the name hadn't already been validly published ...

Stephen

From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au<mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au>" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au<mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au>>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, 4 June 2012 1:57 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

Dear Taxacomers,

Searching in a quiet moment through Eschmeyer's online Catalog of Fishes, I came across the following interesting (to me) pair of homonymous genus and species names, as follows:

<snip>

  Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner [A.] 1955:209 [ref. 1498]. Fem. Gymnochanda filamentosa Fraser-Brunner 1955. Type by original designation (also monotypic). Boeseman 1957:75 [ref. 487] independently chose the same genus and species name for this species; Gymnochanda Boeseman is a homonym and synonym of Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner. [...]  Current status: Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner 1955. Ambassidae.

  Gymnochanda Boeseman [M.] 1957:75 [ref. 487]. Fem. Gymnochanda filamentosa Boeseman 1957. Type by original designation (also monotypic). Homonym and subjective synonym of Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner 1955 (Boeseman independently chose the same genus and species names for this species [as stated in correction notice circulated by Boeseman]). [...] Current status: Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner 1955. Ambassidae.

</snip>

In other words: 2 workers independently devised the same genus and species names, as new, in different places and on different occasions, for 2 taxa which turned out to be the same thing! The odds against this must surely be enormous?

I'd be interested as to whether this is indeed an isolated instance or whether something more cosmic is at work here...

Regards

Tony Rees, Australia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tony Rees
Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
GPO Box 1538,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au<mailto:Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
Biodiversity informatics research activities: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
Personal info: http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tony-rees/18/770/36


_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto: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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org<http://taxacom.markmail.org/>

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