[Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order

[Stephen Thorpe]

let's recap:
 
there are two interpretations:
 
(1) [my favoured interpretation, and the simplest interpretation] Boeseman was wrong that his names were new. It doesn't matter to homonymy or synonymy if the taxa are the same or different (if different, then Boeseman misidentified them). There are no valid type designations by Boeseman; or 
 
(2) Boeseman's names are nomenclaturally distinct. His type designations are valid. Then there are some cases to consider: 
 
(i) the taxa involved are conspecific; or
(ii) the taxa involved are congeneric but not conspecific; or
(iii) the taxa involved are not even congeneric.
 
case (i) : [this is, as far as we know, the true situation]
 
Gymnochanda filamentosa Boeseman, 1957 is an invalid junior secondary homonym in Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955 of Gymnochanda filamentosa Fraser-Brunner, 1955
 
Gymnochanda filamentosa Boeseman, 1957 is an invalid junior subjective synonym of Gymnochanda filamentosa Fraser-Brunner, 1955
 
Gymnochanda Boeseman, 1957 is an invalid junior homonym and an invalid junior synonym of Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955
 
no names need replacing, because the junior homonyms are all invalid junior synonyms
 
case (ii): 
 
Gymnochanda filamentosa Boeseman, 1957 is not a synonym of, but is an invalid junior secondary homonym in Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955 of Gymnochanda filamentosa Fraser-Brunner, 1955, so needs a replacement name
 
Gymnochanda Boeseman, 1957 is an invalid junior homonym and an invalid junior synonym of Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955
 
so, just one name needs replacing (i.e., Gymnochanda filamentosa Boeseman, 1957 needs replacing)
 
case (iii)
 
Gymnochanda Boeseman, 1957 is an invalid junior homonym but not a synonym of Gymnochanda Fraser-Brunner, 1955, so needs replacing
 
Gymnochanda filamentosa Boeseman, 1957 isn't a homonym of anything
 
again, just one name needs replacing (i.e., Gymnochanda Boeseman, 1957 needs replacing)
 
 
I know which out of (1) or (2) I prefer!
 
Cheers, Stephen
 
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: Tony.Rees at csiro.au; gread at actrix.gen.nz; stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz 
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
Sent: Friday, 8 June 2012 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Homonymous synonyms / cosmic order


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