AW: Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts
Yde de Jong
yjong at SCIENCE.UVA.NL
Wed Nov 9 15:20:35 CET 2005
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
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).
>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
>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"
>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
>Maybe you're asking about something altogether different, in which case I
>apologize for adding mud to the water....
>>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
>>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,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-tag