Dear Roger,
Firstly thanks to Richard for answering most of the question and
sorry for my delayed reply.
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:
Eupogodon
spinellus (C.Agardh) Kützing
† Dasya spinella
C.Agardh
= Dasyopsis
spinella (C.Agardh) Zanardini
...would -with respect to the authorship(!)- be rewritten by a
zoologist like:
Eupogodon
spinellus (C.Agardh 1827)
† Dasya spinella C.Agardh
1827
= Dasyopsis
spinella (C.Agardh 1827)
So the parentheses shows that the species name not shows the
original combination, that's all, the authorship of new combinations
is not kept.
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.
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).
Kind regards,
Yde
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
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