<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: AW: Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon
Concepts</title></head><body>
<div>Dear Roger,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Firstly thanks to Richard for answering most of the question and
sorry for my delayed reply.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The principal difference in how new combinations are considered
in zoology compared to botany is indeed also reflected in how
zoologists deal with the authorship. A botanical taxonomic treatment
like:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font face="Times" size="+3" color="#000000"><i>Eupogodon
spinellus</i> (C.Agardh) Kützing</font></div>
<div><font face="Symbol" size="+3" color="#000000">†</font><font
face="Times" size="+3" color="#000000"><i> Dasya spinella</i>
C.Agardh</font></div>
<div><font face="Times" size="+3" color="#000000">=<i> Dasyopsis
spinella</i> (C.Agardh) Zanardini</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>...would -with respect to the authorship(!)- be rewritten by a
zoologist like:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font face="Times" size="+3" color="#000000"><i>Eupogodon
spinellus</i> (C.Agardh 1827)</font></div>
<div><font face="Symbol" size="+3" color="#000000">†</font><font
face="Times" size="+3" color="#000000"><i> Dasya spinella</i> C.Agardh
1827</font></div>
<div><font face="Times" size="+3" color="#000000">=<i> Dasyopsis
spinella</i> (C.Agardh 1827)</font></div>
<div><font face="Times" size="+3"
color="#000000"><i><br></i></font></div>
<div>So the parentheses shows that the species name not shows the
original combination, that's all, the authorship of new combinations
is not kept.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I have to add that, in contrast to botany, the zoological
community is very heterogeneous and split into many more or less
isolated subgroups. Between all those zoological subgroups different
interpretations of the ICZN and different nomenclatural practices
exists. Most vertebrate groups for instance are bookkeeping
combinations in a way more or less similar to botany. Some nematode
taxonomists (especially those working on plant parasites) deal with
the authorship in a botanical way, and so on.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I should check whether the use of the genus-group name to handle
objective synonymy is 'just' a practise (in most insects groups) to
economize taxonomic work or governed by the code. I think it's a
practise, however, please don't forget that zoologists are (also)
absolutely free to extensively preserve used combinations if they
prefer. If I am right some zoological database systems like those of
Richard (Taxonomer) and Chris Lyall also keep the authorship of new
combinations (like in botany).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Kind regards,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Yde</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<hr>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hi Roger,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I'm not sure what you're specifically
asking, but there is definitely a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>difference between ICBN and ICZN Codes in
terms of what constitutes a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>nomenclatural act. Under the ICBN
code, combining a species epithet with a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>different genus name (i.e., creating a
new combination) is a Code-governed</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>act. Under ICZN, it is not.
There are some ICZN rules that affect</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>subsequent combinations (e.g., gender
agreement, secondary homonyms, etc.),</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>but the point is, ICZN-governed
"names" are limited to what more or less</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>corresponds to botanical
basionyms.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>These differences between the two Codes
have led to the different</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>perspectives of:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Botanical -- subsequent genus combination
constitutes a new name, and thus</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>genus combination is an attribute of a
name object.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Zoological -- genus combination (other
than original genus combination)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>considered an attribute of *usage* of a
name; therefore not creating a "new"</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>name object.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The difference is also reflected in the
different styles of attributing</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>authorship of names.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>As I said in a previous post, it all
boils down to whether genus combination</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>is an attribute of a name object
(botanical), or of a name-usage instance</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>(zoological).</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Maybe you're asking about something
altogether different, in which case I</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>apologize for adding mud to the
water....</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Aloha,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Rich</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<hr></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Yde,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Could you say which articles in the code
(http://www.iczn.org/iczn/)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>support the usage examples you are giving
here.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>My understanding of this is that it is a
matter of presentation within</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>publications and not a matter of
different use of the nomenclatural</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>codes. The authors are simply assuming
that the specific epithets are</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>well enough known (in combination with
the author string) for them not</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>to have to quote the genus part of the
binomial. It seems to me to be</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>merely a presentation convention like
abbreviating the genus name to a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>single letter.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>If it is significantly different way of
treating names (and therefore</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>relevant to the GUID debate) why isn't in
the code? Perhaps we should</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>approach the ICZN 2000 editorial
committee for their comments? But this</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>would definitely be outside the scope of
GUIDs and should perhaps be</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>moved to a different list.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Quoting article numbers nearly always
clarifies these debates.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hope this helps,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Roger</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>