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