Re: AW: Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts
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
participants (1)
-
Yde de Jong