[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 7:44 AM

> Hi Stephen,
>
> If you have evidence to support the "chresonym theory" then fine, produce
> it and let others judge - otherwise we are back with Eschmeyer's Catalog
> (who is, after all, the recognised expert on fish taxonomy and
> nomenclature at this time), who does cite and one presumes, has seen
> Boeseman's supplementary note, and who treats this pair of names as
> synonymous homonyms (or whatever the reverse is), not chresonyms.

***
It is, of course, very dangerous for a botanist to venture into
zoological nomenclature but here goes (assuming that the
types are different):
It is clearest for homonyms. Obviously, the generic names
Gymnochanda and Gymnochanda are homonyms. Equally
clearly, the specific names filamentosa and filamentosa
may be homonyms, but only if they are combined with the
same generic name, which so far appears not to be the case?
Under no circumstance are Gymnochanda filamentosa
and Gymnochanda filamentosa homonyms (in the sense
of the zoological Code).
It is less clear for synonyms, but there appears to be agreement
that the generic names Gymnochanda and Gymnochanda are 
subjective synonyms. And surely the species names (binomina) 
Gymnochanda filamentosa and Gymnochanda filamentosa are 
subjective synonyms, as well. However, as I read the
zoological Code (but in this case it is a big headache), the
specific names filamentosa and filamentosa are not synonyms?

So, Gymnochanda filamentosa and Gymnochanda filamentosa
may be homonymous synonyms, but they are definitely not
synonymous homonyms.

Paul