[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

It looks clear to me that chresonymy concerns itself with use
of the same name (connected with the same type). This is not 
the case here (different types, and therefore different names) 
and unless the term chresonym is redefined (big mess!) it 
cannot be used here.

Paul
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Thorpe 
  To: Paul van Rijckevorsel ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order


  Paul,
  It is a BIG MESS if you don't jump my way, i.e. calling the second instances chresonyms. If you think that the generic names are homonyms and subjective synonyms, then the specific names are, as you rightly point out, NOT primary homonyms (since they were originally combined with DIFFERENT, though homonymous, genera), but they would be secondary homonyms (and synonyms) ...

  Cheers,
  Stephen




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 7:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order


  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



  _______________________________________________

  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