[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Stephen Thorpe]

taken from the Code glossary:
 homonym, n.
(1) In the family group: each of two or more available names having the same spelling, or differing only in suffix, and denoting different nominal taxa. (2) In the genus group: each of two or more available names having the same spelling, and denoting different nominal taxa. (3) In the species group: each of two or more available specific or subspecific names having the same spelling, or spellings deemed under Article 58 to be the same, and established for different nominal taxa, and either originally (primary homonymy) or subsequently (secondary homonymy) combined with the same generic name [Art. 53.3]. For examples, see Article 53.1 for family-group names, Article 53.2 for genus-group names, and Article 53.3 for species-group names
 
this is a little amusing! I think the idea is that homonyms are the same name for *different taxa*, in which case synonymic homonyms are impossible. What is amusing is that the Code talks about *different nominal taxa*! A nominal taxon is a taxon denoted by a particular name, which makes the above definition a nonsense, unless we can distinguish between all three of: 
 
(1) spelling (=name)
 
(2) nominal taxon
 
(3) taxon
 
but I can't really see how to distinguish (1) and (2)???
 
Again from the glossary: 
 
nominal taxon
A concept of a taxon which is denoted by an available name (e.g. Mollusca, Diptera, Bovidae, Papilio, Homo sapiens). Each nominal taxon in the family, genus or species groups is based on a name-bearing type (although in the latter two groups such a type may not have been actually fixed).
 
this doesn't really help. Sure you can denote different taxa with the same name (i.e., homonyms), but can you denote different nominal taxa with the same name??? Sure you can denote the same taxon with different nominal taxa (i.e., synonyms), but "synonymic homonyms" requires one to denote the same taxon with different nominal taxa which have the same spelling!!!
 
Cheers, Stephen
 

________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; gread at actrix.gen.nz 
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 5:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order


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.
 
Cheers - Tony
 
From:Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 3:29 PM
To: gread at actrix.gen.nz
Cc: Rees, Tony (CMAR, Hobart); taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order
 
you can try to rationalise it all you like, but the ICZN Code has nothing to say on the matter, and the "chresonymn solution" does have the advantage of simplicity ...
 
Cheers, Stephen
 
From:Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> 
Cc: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <tony.rees at csiro.au>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 
Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

Would not Boeseman have to be proved to be aware of Fraser-Brunner's names
at the time for the occurrence to be a usage (aka chresonym) instead of
the more entertaining spontaneous cosmic synonymous homonym (or whatever
it is)?  The apparently privately circulated explanation of Boeseman is
said to claim the latter, so he was not aware and that ought to be
accepted as true.  But unsatisfactory to seemingly only have 2nd hand
knowledge of the note's existence, with but a cryptic indication of the
content.

Geoff


On Thu, June 7, 2012 1:27 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> just to reiterate the point that one could interpret Boeseman's names as
> chresonyms of Fraser-Brunner's names, and disregard any type designation
> by Boeseman as invalid (because the type has already been fixed by
> Fraser-Brunner) ... the Zoological Code does not have anything to say
> about such an interpretation ...
>  
> Stephen
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> To: WeirB at landcareresearch.co.nz
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order
>
> Hi Bevan,
>
> The difference between your example and that of Gymnochanda filamentosa
> Fraser-Brunner 1955 vs. Gymnochanda filamentosa Boeseman 1957 is that, not
> only were these 2 species established in two different genera (Gymnochanda
> Fraser-Brunner 1955 vs. Gymnochanda Boeseman 1957), but also that both the
> genera and species concerned are synonyms (although based on different
> types) as well as homonyms of each other. That is why it seems like a
> curious coincidence, though possibly there may be other reasons at work as
> explored by different responders. Of course there is also the "cosmic
> order" explanation: every genus and species already has an intrinsic name,
> taxonomists merely discover them...
>
> Regards - Tony
>