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

[Tony Rees]

Hi Stephen,

I cannot disagree with your last point - just something that we have to
live with at this time. Meanwhile regarding the value of authorities cited
as portions of names ("namestrings") when used as identifiers for taxa,
maybe we will just have to agree to disagree. I think my view is adequately
represented by the examples given above, but you are of course entitled to
your opinion.

Regards - Tony

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, 1:58 pm Stephen Thorpe, <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
> I am, of course, very much aware of homonymy and hemihomonymy, I just
> think that there are easier ways to deal with it. For one thing, context
> would make it clear if Agathis montana (plant) was being talked about, or
> Agathis montana (insect), or an author can make it clear which they mean to
> refer to, as I just did. What I disagree with is obsessing too much over
> the "correct" year of publication, for example, which can be far from
> straightforward to determine, when author alone is sufficient to
> disambiguate 99.9% of homonyms. In the few cases where author isn't
> sufficient, one could simply use a dummy disambiguation term, or a year
> which is not necessarily the "correct" year according to a strict
> interpretation of the Code.
>
> There is also a complicating factor when publication dates according to
> the Code differ from actual publication dates in general publishing terms.
> Suppose Smith (2020) was published in the general publishing sense, online
> first, in 2020. Suppose firstly that it is all about ecology or physiology
> or something, not taxonomy. Then, if you want to cite some (nontaxonomic)
> info from it, you would cite it as Smith (2020). But now suppose that it is
> taxonomic and describes a new species Aus bus, online first, but forgot
> ZooBank preregistration, but a hard copy followed in 2021. How many
> taxonomists do you think are going to distinguish between the *two*
> publications, Smith (2020, online) and Smith (2021, print)? Very few, if
> any! There is no reason why you can't cite stuff about Aus bus Smith, 2021,
> by citing the information in Smith (2020). It all gets very messy, very
> quickly!
>
> Cheers, Stephen
>
> On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 11:01:49 am NZDT, Tony Rees <
> tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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%7C7e02d9a4a85541b9bd0108db2f3af225%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638155702439052617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8IqCELtaTmExqbiNZyJCwxAupzhYnGj5dsWRlU9%2Bij0%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%7C7e02d9a4a85541b9bd0108db2f3af225%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638155702439052617%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iZwha%2F0ziLkTUueSydTR8jBtVkq2qQK%2BWcX6TirKn6E%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
>
>