Taxacom: Clarification RE e-publication (zoology) - new name has ZooBank LSID (or doesn't), publication does

[Tony Rees]

Hi Stephen,

I agree that for binomial names the problem is not immediately obvious -
although there are some well known cross-Code examples such as Agathis
montana Shestakov, 1932 (a wasp) versus Agathis montana de Laub. (the Mount
Panié kauri, a conifer). In fact the problem is more likely to be
encountered in large genera such as Rosa (>5,000 species names); a search
of resources such as The Plant List, or Plants of the World Online (POWO)
soon picks up duplicated binomials such as (quick look) Rosa affinis
Sternb., Rosa affinis A. Rau, Rosa affinis Gand. and Rosa affinis Godet -
which name is what taxon today?

The problem really becomes most serious at the genus level and above
(uninomials); last time I did a count in my own compilation, IRMNG, there
were about 70,000 of these at genus level (i.e., names that were not
unique) of approaching 500,000 names held (data available via "All Genera
of the World" by myself and co-workers in Megataxa, 2020), or
approximately 1 in 7, not even counting cross rank homonyms e.g. Anura (5
instances at genus level) vs. Anura Duméril, 1805, an amphibian order. You
can generate lists of these (excepting the cross rank homonyms, and
species-leve homonyms within the same genus instance) via the IRMNG
"homonyms" page(s) accessed via https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Fhomonyms.php&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C415b5480b4f34740f3c408db2f0edd8b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638155513111954720%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=46wzWBA1K6o4udRylfQOlJJql%2Fhtr5cW4PXHbg8uD2g%3D&reserved=0, or
download the data and look around for yourself...

So from the above one can infer that for these 70,000+ duplicated instances
of generic names, the associated authority (preferably plus year) is indeed
important. In fact for the other 430,000 or so, it is also potentially
still important since any of them may become a senior homonym of another
newly published name with no notice, and thereafter require to be
distinguishable as the senior homonym in each case.

Best - Tony
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C415b5480b4f34740f3c408db2f0edd8b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638155513111954720%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YXhv0v590Voc4pneOsYdYTYtit0CVfqHkY6Ch7P3kwU%3D&reserved=0


On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 at 06:45, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> Tony, I’m not sure we live in the same “real world”, but, for me, what is
> important is to have a unique binomial for a given species (unique in the
> sense Th it only applies to one species, while that species may have
> several alternative binomials). Authorship and date are minor details, not
> to be bothered about most of the time. As an example, the binomial Homo
> sapiens is rarely fully cited with author or date, because there would be
> no point!
> Stephen
>
>