[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Stephen Thorpe]

I agree ... but it is more complex ...
 
if two distinct names are found to be based on the same primary type, then they are "objective synonyms" (even though it may take external evidence to establish homotypy)
 
if two homonymous names are found to be based on the same primary type, then I would call the second one a chresonym of the first one, rather than an (objectively) synonymous homonym
 
however, this means that external evidence may be needed to distinguish new names from chresonyms (and it may be time relative, due to lectotype or neotype designations)
 
the alternative is messy, due to the fact that pre-2000 names can be new even if not flagged as new ...
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Richard Petit <r.e.petit at att.net>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> 
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Tuesday, 5 June 2012 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order


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
>
>
>