[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Tony.Rees at csiro.au]

Of course where I said "a replacement genus name would be needed to avoid the homonymy" I was imagining the case where the genera were found to be different, and Boeseman's "filamentosa" would then stand; if the only difference were only at species level (which is presumably more likely though still hypothetical of course), it is the species epithet which would need a replacement name.

- Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Sent: Friday, 8 June 2012 2:56 PM
> To: gread at actrix.gen.nz; stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic
> order
> 
> Of course we only have somebody's (Boeseman's?) *opinion* that these
> are the same taxon - the type material is different, so there is always
> the possibility that they may later be shown to be cryptic/distinct by
> other characters. So whether they are in fact different taxa is open to
> revision, in which case Boeseman's epithet would stand, but a
> replacement genus name would be needed to avoid the homonymy...
> 
> The above is probably the only reason why Boeseman's nomenclatural acts
> should not be entirely forgotten, but kept in abeyance at this time (as
> opposed to his species records and descriptive information, which of
> course add to the sum of knowledge of this "species").
> 
> Cheers - Tony
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Read
> > Sent: Friday, 8 June 2012 2:36 PM
> > To: Stephen Thorpe
> > Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order
> >
> >
> > On Fri, June 8, 2012 12:59 pm, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> >
> > " I think the idea is that homonyms are the same name for *different
> > taxa*, in which case synonymic homonyms are impossible."
> >
> > Could well be so. Art. 52.1 on the principle states: "When two or
> more
> > taxa are distinguished from each other they must not be denoted by
> the
> > same name."
> >
> > But these Gymnochanda are precisely not distinguishable/distinct from
> > each
> > other.  This is subjective by the taxonomist who made the call but
> > that's
> > how it always is.
> >
> > I'm also struggling a bit with the choice of the words 'are
> > distinguished'. Does the code mean during the act of distinguishing
> > (the
> > process of classifying in one's mind) or the necessary qualifying
> state
> > that they are distinct? I presume the latter makes more sense. But
> why
> > use
> > 'distinguished'?
> >
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> >
> > > taken from the Code glossary:
> > > Â 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
> > > Â
> > > 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:
> > > Â
> > > (1) spelling (=name)
> > > Â
> > > (2) nominal taxon
> > > Â
> > > (3) taxon
> > > Â
> > > but I can't really see how to distinguish (1) and (2)???
> > > Â
> > > Again from the glossary:
> > > Â
> > > 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).
> > > Â
> > > 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!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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