[Taxacom] possible genus homonym nomenclatural question

[John Grehan]

Similar taxon spellings are the bane of my life sometimes.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:53 PM Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Adam's answer is the correct one, however for completeness, it is possibly
> worth noting that in botany (under the ICN), names with such minor spelling
> differences may be treated as homonyms in some cases. This is one of the
> areas where the two Codes differ. See:
>
> 53.2. When two or more names of genera or species based on different types
> are so similar that they are likely to be confused (because they are
> applied to related taxa or for any other reason) they are to be treated as
> homonyms (see also Art. 61.5). If established practice has been to treat
> two similar names as homonyms, this practice is to be continued if it is in
> the interest of nomenclatural stability.
>
> *Ex. 8. Names treated as homonyms: Asterostemma Decne. (in Ann. Sci. Nat.,
> Bot., ser. 2, 9: 271. 1838) and Astrostemma Benth. (in Hooker’s Icon. Pl.
> 14: 7. 1880); Pleuropetalum Hook. f. (in London J. Bot. 5: 108. 1846) and
> Pleuripetalum T. Durand (Index Gen. Phan.: 493. 1888); Eschweilera DC.
> (Prodr. 3: 293. 1828) and Eschweileria Boerl. (in Ann. Jard. Bot.
> Buitenzorg 6: 106, 112. 1887); Skytanthus Meyen (Reise 1: 376. 1834) and
> Scytanthus Hook. (in Icon. Pl. 7: ad t. 605–606. 1844).
>
> (plus some further examples) - Shenzhen Code, 2018
>
> Regards - Tony
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
> www.irmng.org
>
>
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 04:01, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> Thanks to those who responded already. As I suspected - I missed the
>> 'obvious' as it is a spelling difference (m instead of an n). So all is
>> clear now. And the 'butterfly' name is actually for a moth to be precise.
>>
>> John Grehan
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 1:34 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear colleagues,
>> >
>> > A friend of mine asked about why the genus name Clymna Hutton 1883 for a
>> > group of snails is not a homonym a butterfly genus of the same name
>> > under Calymma Hübner, 1823 (
>> >
>> https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/butmoth/search/GenusDetails.dsml?NUMBER=4898.0
>> > )
>> >
>> > If it is a homonym then the synonymy of the snail genus Flammocharopa
>> > under Calymna Hutton, 1883 would presumably be incorrect (see
>> > https://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=820085 )
>> >
>> > Perhaps I have missed something obvious, but I would be grateful for
>> > insight from any on this list well acquainted with such issues. And
>> please,
>> > for those of you inclined to respond with unkind remarks about my
>> knowledge
>> > or understanding of nomenclature, keep them to yourselves. I am not
>> > interested. Hopefully someone will be able to provide
>> > clarification/corroboration of my current inference.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> > John Grehan
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>>
>