[tcs-lc] Next 4 days...

[Richard Pyle]

> OK, so we differ on how we see our Codes mixing/separating
> taxonomy with nomenclature and I suspect this difference is based
> on the 'concept' we personally have behind each word we use when we
> speak/type. So, for example, you say 'treating a different classification
> as though it was really a different name' to which I would respond
> 'the taxonomy which resulted in the new classification under a binomial
> system ... required an new name (nomenclatural act)' - the second part
> was a consequence of, but separate from, the first part. Part 1 -
> Aus beus L. belongs in Xus (taxonomy); part 2 - code requires new name
> Xus beus (L.) P.M. Kirk (nomenclature) [Botanical]. I cannot begin to
> be repeat this for a Zoological situation but would be interested in
> what it reads like.

When you really dissect this to its "informational essence", the only
difference between botany and zoology approaches is that the former
traditionally keeps track of (and preserves credit for) the authorship team
that first created the binomial combination; and Zoology does not.  This
stems from the fact that the placement of a species epithet into a different
genus combination constitutes a nomenclatural act sensu ICBN, but not so
sensu ICZN.

Restating your words in the Zoology context would look something like this:

'the taxonomy which resulted in the new classification under a binomial
system
... was reflected in the combining of an existing species-group name with a
particular genus-group name (a nomenclatural act only insofar as
the gender of genus affects the proper orthography of the species)'

Part 1 - Aus beus L. belongs in Xia (taxonomy); part 2 - code requires
suffix of
species-group epithet to match the gender of the combined genus: Xia bea
(L.)

Pretty-much the same, except we don't keep track of the author who first
made the combination.  When you think about it, the Combination authorship
has almost no relevance to the taxonomic concept circumscription of the
species epithet to which the authorship is attached.  The taxonomic act only
applies to the genus-level concept circumscriptions.  That's why it seems
odd to me that the non-parenthetical part of the "authorship" of a species
name in the botanical sense, is really a reference to the fact that they
altered the genus definition; not the species definition.

However, this is not an issue, because there techically *is* a first author
team that established each unique combination of zoology names -- it's just
not treated as an ICZN "act".  So, as Anna pointed out in Christchurch,
there's really no harm to treating zoological names as though they are
botanical names.

The only reason I would tend to favor option "A" is when I wear my database
manager/information modeler hat on -- not when I wear my Zoologist hat.
Basically, if the database schema treats only Protonyms(~Basionyms) as name
objects, the information model takes a somewhat different (somewhat more
nomralized) form.  In this scenario, a binomial is represented by two GUIDs,
and a trinomial is represented by 3 GUIDs (except in the case of autonyms
[=nominotypical taxa], where a trinomial is represented by two GUIDs and a
rank context).  In the botanical system, each binomial name gets its own
GUID, but each trinomial does not. We'd have to figure out how to deal with
the middle name of a trinomial (i.e., treat them more or less the same way
we would treat infrageneric names).

> I think I would prefer the 'smart' (code independant) solution ... so its
> ready for the BioCode ;o)

I'm all in favor of the BioCode!!! :-)  However, my reasons for favoring the
approach that treats "Aus bus" and "Aus aus bus" as separate "Name" objects
(i.e., option "C") again has more to do with database/information modelling
stuff, than with ICZN/ICBN stuff.

Rich