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

[Richard Pyle]

Thanks, Paul!

RE: the type of an isonym:  I suppose that no subsequent usage of any name (isonym or not) has a "type", strictly speaking.  But if I refer to the type species of a genus, it remains as the type of any usage of that "same" name.  This sounds like a semantics issue, but while type designations are strictly applied to the "name", as it is established in the protologue, I think it's fair to say that the "type" is at least conceptually represented for any subsequent usage of a name.  This is what I meant by "names with the same type" -- I probably should have phrased that as something like "two names are not considered homonyms if they are referrable to the same type"; as opposed to two names that are homonyms, which each have different types.

RE: homotypic synonyms -- in zoology we don't generally use that term (though I think we should), which I gather in non-zoological contexts usually refers to the "same" epithet combined with different genera (e.g., a basionym is a homotypic synonym of a subsequent combination).  However, we do have the notion of "objective synonyms", such as when the same specimen has been designated as the name-bearing type for two different species-group epithets (with different spellings, authorships, protologues*, etc.)  This is not common, but sometimes happens by accident, and sometimes is done on purpose.  But I wonder:  do you have situations in Botany where synonyms are "homotypic", even if they are not the "same" epithet combined with different genera (i.e., in cases where they are truly different epithets)?

Aloha,
Rich

*We don't use the term "protologue" much in zoology either, but again we probably should.

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Senior Curator of Ichthyology | Director of XCoRE
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4115;  Fax: (808) 847-8252
eMail: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
BishopMuseum.org
Our Mission: Bishop Museum inspires our community and visitors through the exploration and celebration of the extraordinary history, culture, and environment of Hawaiʻi and the Pacific.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> On Behalf Of
> Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 9:03 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early
> view" example...
> 
> Op 11/05/2021 om 18:50 schreef Richard Pyle via Taxacom:
> > 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 ICFafp, the requirement (as it exists at present) that the name of a
> new taxon must have a type starts at "on or after 1 January 1958". And,
> obviously, older names don't necessarily have been assigned types (Linnaean
> names are not a good example, since these have been closely scrutinized).
> But, older names can be assigned types, and then it does work.
> 
> I guess I should point to two conceptual wrinkles:
> 
> * only a name (scientific name) can have a type, and a later isonym (later
> usage) is not a name: therefore a later isonym cannot actually have a type.
> So definition-wise there is a substantial conceptual hole in "names with the
> same type". To be more accurate an exercise in conditional logic seems
> called for (something like "that would have the same type if both were to be
> names ...").
> 
> * there are situations (that don't appear involved here) where names have
> the same type by definition (that is, they are homotypic names), regardless
> of the fact whether either name actually has a type or not. So it is quite
> possible to have untypified homotypic names.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 34 years, 1987-2021.