[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Stephen Thorpe]

well, it is more complicated: 
even post-1999, and assuming full Code compliance (which I was assuming in my post that you quote below), if author P describes Aus bus as an "n. sp.", and then author Q does the same, using the same name, and clearly specifying the same holotype, under the mistaken assumption that the name had not been validly proposed already by P, then I would regard Q's citation of "n. sp." as a mistake, and confer no distinct nomenclatural status on Aus bus Q ...
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
To: Richard Petit <r.e.petit at att.net> 
Cc: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Tuesday, 5 June 2012 9:57 AM
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 ...

Hi Stephen, I did not read your comment before sending mine.
If a name was not correctly established under the Code and the author
wrote "n. sp.", but the conditions of the Code were not fulfilled, for
example because no acceptable description was given, then of course the
"n. sp." statement is incorrect (a nomen nudum cannot be regarded as a new
name). The idea behind that is that not the author decides if a name is
new, but the community, guided by certain rules.
Dick's Japanese example goes probably in the same direction.

Very different is perhaps Adam's example. I would like to know more about
it. Why was the same name selected? Because of an outstanding character of
the species?

Francisco

>
>  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
>
>