[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Stephen Thorpe]

incidentally (just to throw a spanner in the works), if a subsequent author uses the same name (as "n. sp.") with a different type, one could always interpret it to be an invalid type designation, incorrect use of "n. sp.", and just a chresonym of the former name!
 
Stephen


________________________________
From: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
To: Richard Petit <r.e.petit at att.net> 
Cc: Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>; Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Tuesday, 5 June 2012 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

Dick,
I intended to respond to Stephen's thoughts about more general aspects of
the problem, it was not my intention and it would not be my style to say
something in an indirect form.

I said that the Code gives no guide, and so it is natural that various
disciplines developed different traditions. I think none of these is
correct or incorrect, they are just different. The names as you cited them
are entirely Code-compliant because the Code does not provide rules on
such cases. Any interpretation that is possible under the Code, is Code
compliant.

In the discipline I am familiar with the scientists would probably have
applied a different interpretation. Such things have historic reasons.

Why should the exchange of different views across disciplines become a
mess? At the best we can find some minimum standards that are applied in
all disciplines. A multidisciplinary forum is the right place to
understand differences between disciplines in such interpretations.

Peace
Francisco

> I should have known better than to step into what has become a mess. Now
> Francisco is supposing that some people (I am not sure if he was pointing
> directly at me but that conclusion seems unavoidable given the context)
> cannot distinguish between Code-compliant new names and nomina nuda. Since
> Francisco specifically refers to my Japanese examples it is inescapable
> that
> he questions that the names I referenced were Code-compliant.  I somehow
> doubt that he will accept my assurance that they are available names
> although in common usage.

There is no reason for such doubts.
As I said, I did not say that the Code has any rules to support the
statement that these names, as used in your discipline, are not
Code-compliant.

>
> As for the two European examples mentioned by Francisco. I assume that
> both
> names were introduced in the same genus.  In many such cases they were
> not.
> This is important as the second (or even more) usage, if considered
> available (as I believe it/them to be) exists for purposes of homonymy.
>
> I am finished with this subject and apologize to all list users for my
> verbosity. I will be pleased to correspond on this subject individually
> with
> anyone.
>
> dick p.
>
>