[Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early view" example...

[Richard Pyle]

> This is not a problem in the /ICNafp/: if two 'names', in different
> publications, have the same spelling and the same type this is later usage. 

OK, so in ICNafp, the same type means the same name.  What about older names?  Does the requirement for an explicitly fixed type go all the way back to 1753 (e.g., to all Linnaeus plant names have explicitly fixed types?)  Or, can older names still be validly published even without explicit type fixation (as is the case in Zoology)?

> In the /ICNafp/, homonyms can exist only if they have different types.

That's my own operational approach within zoology as well.  But the problem is, as noted, with early literature, in the era before types were really a "thing".  In such cases it's often not clear whether two names should be regarded as homonyms or as subsequent usages.  This digresses from the original question I was interested in (which was more about deciding when two documents represent different variants of the "same" work vs. two different works -- but I set us down this path by introducing a nomenclatural issue within my original query). But is also important to sort out (and, in my view, harmonize phycological/mycological/botanical approaches with zoological approaches).

Aloha,
Rich