[Zoobank-list] names vs. citations (of names)

[Faunaplan at aol.com]

Dear Richard,
only after posting my response to David Eades, I saw your posting. Here is my 
response:
 
You wrote:
>> And, when a bi- or trinomen is synonymized under a different genus 
combination, its epithet automatically competes with all epithets in that genus, even 
if there is no explicit citation of such a binomen.<<
 
>I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean in this case. Do you mean: 
Aus bus Smith is treated as a junior synonym of Xus cus Jones, and in doing so 
implicitly establishes the combination "Xus bus (Smith)" as a potentialhomonym 
of another "cus" within Xus?<
 
Yes, exactly that's what I wanted to say. See also the example I've given in 
my response to David Eades.
And the following (cited from your answer to David Eades) is exactly where we 
disagree:
>...  now my position is that species epithets treated as junior synonyms do 
not have inherent
combinations, and in the database do not link to any parent. Thus, in your
example above, I would only have xus as a synonym of yus, without creating
the combination "Bus xus".<
 
In my opinion, all epithets incl. those of synonyms do compete for homonymy 
within a genus combination. 
So, if not at least ZooBank documents this fact, users might step into 
pitfall traps (i.e., cannot make out homonymies, create unnecessary synonyms,etc.)
 

And you wrote
>> Or, two more common but often debated examples: A name published under a 
narrow genus-concept as "Bgenus Smithi" also *exists* in a corresponding wider 
genus concept (which includes Bgenus as a subgenus) as "Agenus (Bgenus) 
smithi", even if that combination has never been explicitly cited.<<
 
>I don't see this as a problem in need of a solution for ZooBank. The 
creation of a genus-group name simultaneously establishes it at the rank of full 
genus and subgenus; but this does not mean that both versions necessarily "exist" 
until someone uses the alternate version..<
 
Among specialists of ground beetles, there is the whole range of active 
"spitters" and "lumpers". So situations are not rare where a nov.sp. is given an 
epithet that is preoccupied in a wider genus concept. The deplorable consequence 
is that some species have two totally different valid names (both genus and 
epithet different) depending on your preferred genus concept. 
I thought ZooBank can contribute to stability by providing a sort of alert 
service. But it's also clear to me that this is close to the borderline between 
the "realms" of nomenclature and taxonomy. It can only work if there is direct 
involvement of taxonomist communities.
 
Hope this helps,
Wolfgang
 





   

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.afriherp.org/pipermail/zoobank-list/attachments/20080313/6610851d/attachment.htm