AW: Topic 3: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts
Richard Pyle
deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG
Mon Nov 7 01:38:36 CET 2005
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 at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Roger Hyam
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:29 AM
> To: TDWG-GUID at 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 at 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 at tdwg.org
> +44 1578 722782
> -------------------------------------
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list