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