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