[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Richard Petit]

Stephen:

I think your point is about the flip side of Francisco's other argument.  Certainly an old name can be new without being flagged as such. Hardly any (if indeed any) of the Chemnitz names made available by later authors are stated to be new. This leads directly into the subject I did not wish to raise as it is too convoluted for easy discussion.

As to your new question (can a name flagged as new fail to be new?), the answer is yes.  Although not addressed in the Code (and such would be difficult) there exist a number of Japanese books containing new species, all properly tagged as "sp. nov."  As I have written in several papers, these books underwent numerous reprintings and revisions,  creating new citable books with different dates.  In many cases it was only be after several reprintings that the "sp. nov." tag was dropped.  I do not consider the usage of "sp. nov." in the revised printings to constitute more available homonymous names.  I know that "common sense" is not part of the Code, but in this case it is necessary to use it!

dick p. 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Thorpe 
  To: Richard Petit ; Francisco Welter-Schultes 
  Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order


  actually, Francisco still has a point: 
  an old name can be new, even if it wasn't originally flagged as new. Can a name that is flagged as new fail to be new? That is an awkward question which the zoological Code doesn't satisfactorily address ...

  Stephen


  From: Richard Petit <r.e.petit at att.net>
  To: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> 
  Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Sent: Tuesday, 5 June 2012 9:15 AM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order


  Dear Francisco:

  It would be nice if you could, every so often, credit others with some small 
  degree of perspicacity.

  When I listed the three names in my posting I should have included the "n. 
  sp." that the respective authors each placed after their introductions. I 
  failed to realize that I would possibly be accused of not being able to 
  recognize the introduction of a new name. That they each clearly intended to 
  introduce a new name is enough. It is not necessary to try to "get into the 
  minds" of the authors to try to guess what they knew or did not know.

  As for the other part of your message, I disagree about the multiple 
  introductions of names based on non-binominal usage but will not attempt to 
  open a discussion on that subject.

  Regards,

  dick p. 


  _______________________________________________

  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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

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