Hi Rich,
The type specimen of the name "Centropyge fisheri" was collected in Hawaii.
The type specimen of the name "Centropyge flavicauda" was collected at Macclesfield Banks, China Sea.
Some treatments regard these as distinct species. Some regard them as synonyms. The name with priority is C. fisheri.
Thus, the combination of genus and specific epithet "Centropyge fisheri" can therefore refer to at least two different concepts: one (sensu stricto) is the set of organisms in Hawaii; the other (sensu lato) is the set of organisms in Hawaii and the China Sea (and places in-between).
I am not familiar with the reasoning behind this example but the problem starts when
*Centropyge fisheri* <= *Centropyge flavicauda*
Since the majority of publications use just Centropyge fisheri, it is not clear if they meant
The original *Centropyge fisheri* or *Centropyge flavicauda*
These are two concepts:
*Centropyge fisheri* anchored by one instance of the species concept an individual organism
*Centropyge flavicauda* anchored by one instance of the species concept an individual organism
The descriptions probably do not provide much guidance as to where one concept starts and another concept begins.
By this I mean a reliable and repeatable guide to what specimens are instances of each of these concepts.
If *Centropyge fisheri* and *Centropyge flavicauda* were kept separate then entailed concept would be clearer.
Later someone could hypothesize that these two concepts overlap and provide evidence that these two specimens that are members of the same species.
In the process they would produce some testable guide that clarifies what other individuals are also instances of this species concept.
But for now, if you are trying to assemble facts, the mapping of *Centropyge flavicauda* to *Centropyge fisheri *makes it unclear what concept was intended.
In summary, those who assert that something is a heterotypic synonym of something else should provide a guide that clarifies what other individuals would or would not be instances of that same species concept.
I assume you mean GNUB? Or something else?
Yes, I think I wrote GNITE/GNUB, or I intended to.
"Valid" names would include properly formed synonyms so Felis concolor would return Felis concolor Linnaeus 1771.
Careful with the use of the word "valid". It means two entirely different things to botaniststs and zoologists, and neither of them mean it in the same way you are using it.
Yes, there should be a way to output code compliant names etc, but the entire process of mapping things to other things does not need to be code compliant.
There will need to be intermediate namestrings created in the workflow that may not be code compliant.
There are for intermediate entities that are not covered by the codes.
For instance, it would make a lot of sense that somewhere in this process there was a link, or documentation to the publication and author behind "Linnaeus 1771" etc.
In these examples, those links exist http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/2mqjL.html http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ses/v6n7p.html
Respectfully,
- Pete
--------------------------------------------------------------- Pete DeVries Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin - Madison 445 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 TaxonConcept Knowledge Base http://www.taxonconcept.org/ / GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://lod.geospecies.org/ About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base http://about.geospecies.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------