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

-----Original Message----- From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Roger Hyam Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:29 AM To: TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Subject: Re: AW: Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts

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

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:31:19 +0100, Yde de Jong yjong@SCIENCE.UVA.NL wrote:

...

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

--

---

Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group

---

http://www.tdwg.org roger@tdwg.org

+44 1578 722782