AW: Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Roger,

I'm not sure what you're specifically asking, but there is definitely a
difference between ICBN and ICZN Codes in terms of what constitutes a
nomenclatural act.  Under the ICBN code, combining a species epithet with a
different genus name (i.e., creating a new combination) is a Code-governed
act.  Under ICZN, it is not.  There are some ICZN rules that affect
subsequent combinations (e.g., gender agreement, secondary homonyms, etc.),
but the point is, ICZN-governed "names" are limited to what more or less
corresponds to botanical basionyms.

These differences between the two Codes have led to the different
perspectives of:

Botanical -- subsequent genus combination constitutes a new name, and thus
genus combination is an attribute of a name object.

Zoological -- genus combination (other than original genus combination)
considered an attribute of *usage* of a name; therefore not creating a "new"
name object.

The difference is also reflected in the different styles of attributing
authorship of names.

As I said in a previous post, it all boils down to whether genus combination
is an attribute of a name object (botanical), or of a name-usage instance
(zoological).

Maybe you're asking about something altogether different, in which case I
apologize for adding mud to the water....

Aloha,
Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project
> [mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Roger Hyam
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:29 AM
> To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: AW: Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts
>
>
> Yde,
>
> Could you say which articles in the code (http://www.iczn.org/iczn/)
> support the usage examples you are giving here.
>
> My understanding of this is that it is a matter of presentation within
> publications and not a matter of different use of the nomenclatural
> codes. The authors are simply assuming that the specific epithets are
> well enough known (in combination with the author string) for them not
> to have to quote the genus part of the binomial. It seems to me to be
> merely a presentation convention like abbreviating the genus name to a
> single letter.
>
> If it is significantly different way of treating names (and therefore
> relevant to the GUID debate) why isn't in the code? Perhaps we should
> approach the ICZN 2000 editorial committee for their comments? But this
> would definitely be outside the scope of GUIDs and should perhaps be
> moved to a different list.
>
> Quoting article numbers nearly always clarifies these debates.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:31:19 +0100, Yde de Jong
> <yjong at SCIENCE.UVA.NL> wrote:
>
>  >Dear Robert,
>  >
>  >What I mean is that most entomologists will
>  >summarize a taxonomic treatment like:
>  >
>  >Eupogodon spinellus (C.Agardh 1827)
>  >
>  >† Dasya spinella C.Agardh 1827
>  >= Dasyopsis spinella (C.Agardh 1827)
>  >= Dasya cervicornis J.Agardh 1841
>  >= Dasyopsis cervicornis (J.Agardh 1841)
>  >= Eupogodon cervicornis (J.Agardh 1841)
>  >= Gigartina flabellata Schousboe 1892
>  >= Larnacea flabellata (Schousboe 1892)
>  >= Eupogodon flabellatus (Schousboe 1892)
>  >
>  >‰ Dasya acanthophora Montagne 1840
>  >‰ Rodonema spinella Naccari 1828
>  >‰ Eupogonium spinellum Kützing 1879
>  >
>  >--------
>  >
>  >....in either this way:
>  >
>  >Eupogodon Kützing 1845
>  >= Dasyopsis Zanardini 1843
>  >
>  >Eupogodon spinellus (C.Agardh 1827) - originally in Dasya
>  >= cervicornis J.Agardh 1841 - originally in Dasya
>  >= flabellata Schousboe 1892 - originally in Gigartina
>  >
>  >
>  >....or this way:
>  >
>  >Eupogodon Kützing
>  >= Dasyopsis Zanardini
>  >
>  >Eupogodon spinellus (C.Agardh)
>  >† Dasya spinella C.Agardh
>  >= Dasya cervicornis J.Agardh 1841
>  >= Gigartina flabellata Schousboe 1892
>  >
>  >
>  >And when some generic names are frequently
>  >associated with certain species-group names
>  >within a genus also:
>  >
>  >Eupogodon Kützing
>  >= Dasyopsis Zanardini
>  >= Gigartina auct.
>  >= Larnacea auct.
>  >
>  >Eupogodon spinellus (C.Agardh)
>  >† Dasya spinella C.Agardh
>  >= Dasya cervicornis J.Agardh 1841
>  >= Gigartina flabellata Schousboe 1892
>  >
>  >
>  >Kind regards,
>  >
>  >Yde
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >>Dear Yde,
>  >>
>  >>>I have to check if the TCS can deal with
>  >>>objective synonymy in a zoological sense.
>  >>>Species2000 for instance can't not deal either
>  >>>with objective synonymy nor with basionyms and
>  >>>is therefore missing a crucial part of
>  >>>information.
>  >>
>  >>Just asking: What exactly do you mean with 'objectice sysnonymy in
>  >>zoological sense' ?
>  >>
>  >>regards,
>  >>Robert Huber
>  >
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------
>  Roger Hyam
>  Technical Architect
>  Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> -------------------------------------
>  http://www.tdwg.org
>  roger at tdwg.org
>  +44 1578 722782
> -------------------------------------