[Previous by date - Re: GALTONIA (a test case?)]
[Next by date - Galtonia (a test case?)]
[Previous by subject - Re: GALTONIA (a test case?)]
[Next by subject - Re: GALTONIA THE FLOWER]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:09:56 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu, vrtpaleo@usc.edu
Cc: kinman@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: GALTONIA (a test case?)
Time to start arguing and work proactively :). Ken's full text is supplied for perusal to those who've not seen the original on the DML. I appologize for the cross-posting, this has already taken long enough.... Ken Kinman (kinman@hotmail.com) wrote: <The question is, should we do something proactively to minimize future confusion over homonyms like Galtonia (PhyloCode is coming, like it or not). There is no big problem under traditional codes---the zoologists use it for a dinosaur genus, and botanists have long used it for a genus of flowering plants. There is almost no chance that this dinosaur and these flowers existed at the same time (much less that this dinosaur ate such flowers), so confusion is not anticipated under ICZN and ICBN. *However*, when PhyloCode kicks in, we have potential problems. Since Galtonia the flower is obviously an older name and morphologically far better known (Galtonia the dinosaur is based on very little material), I assume dinosaurologists will allow Galtonia the flower to be cladistically defined first (and retain its priority).> Preceedence of literature should be the primary criterion in establishing the homonym clause of the PhyloCode. A secondary criterion whoulc be the prevalence of use and the multitude of inclusive taxa which use the genus eponymously, so that ramifications become much more subdued should a descision be altered. I would opt for a new name established to *Galtonia gibbidens* if Mike's suggestion of an Ornithischia [nomen] *gibbidens* is not unreasonable, to avoid further conflict. Of course, I'm all for not using any tooth taxon period, making them all nomina dubia, but in some cases, the nomina are useful referrence criteria and that's why they're there in the first place. But what if both homonyms have long taxonomic history, and several inclusive taxa are establish eponymously? If we have a -iformes and -ales, and a -idae and a -aceae named for two different but closely established names? How would a commitee decide this? What would be the merits of the case if hypothetical "Bentonia" was both a flower, and a mouse genus, and there were similarly a "Bentoniidae," a "Bentoniaceae," a "Bentoniiformes," and a "Bentoniales," and they were named with a year, and as far as fifty years ago, and the establishment of inclusive taxa was established later and included more taxa than just the respective "Bentonia"s, what would be the descision? <Since Galtonia the flower is obviously an older name and morphologically far better known (Galtonia the dinosaur is based on very little material), I assume dinosaurologists will allow Galtonia the flower to be cladistically defined first (and retain its priority).> We can always suggest "Galtonides" if that does not further conflict with another genus [praenomen].... <But if there is not some agreement on such cases beforehand, I can envision a zoologist jumping the gun and trying to cladistically define something like the dinosaur Galtonia to get it priority under PhyloCode (and this would just make traditional botanists very angry and perhaps phylogenetic botanists as well).> This is what I fear, as well. Will the PhyloCode give precedence to an author who wants his genus established first, before a homonym is supplied for consideration? A list of reference homonyms would be ideal. Perhaps a perusal of the Literature from Linnaeus onward should be done and cross-checked so that homonyms in Plantae and Animalia and Fungi can be evaluated for research on use and establishing committees on priotity. The sooner this is done the less harm in conflict in whose names gets validated. If the original author is still alive, s/he/they can have the opportunity to suggest a replacement name.... <Luckily in this case, the dinosaur taxon only has one species, so I doubt this would happen (although discovery of a more complete, but distinct species of this dinosaur could potentially muddy the water----but what are the odds of that?---realistically very remote, thank goodness). My question to those who favor PhyloCode is this: Is anything being done proactively to prevent such problems with homonyms, rather than just waiting to see what happens, and then have a PhyloCode committee make a decision after such problems arise? Of course, in real life, the case for Galtonia (the flower) getting PhyloCode priority is so strong that I doubt any zoologist would try to undermine it. However, there are going to be a lot of other cases that aren't nearly this clear cut.> True. But the establishment of major groups would be a strong case for leaning into one or the other. In the absence of living authorship, the major workers of that group can gather or converse on possible corrections and replacements. "Here we suggest a replacement name for "___" [cite] in light of homonymy with the prior established "___" [cite], this name being "___" [etymology]." In most cases, a new ending "-ops" for lots of animals has the double meaning typically given the aspect of a new face, etc., or "-oides" or "-ides" being similar, ir "-iscus" as was popular in past times, would be the easiest way. If those names would be difficult or run into homonymy, simply modifying the name, as suggested by Criesler and Chatterjee for the names "Turneria" and "Walkeria" can be modified with a new preffix, such as part of the first name, or with "Neo-", etc. Plants, as suggested by others, can be appellated with a "Phyto-" or similar stem, and we go on. Picking names isn't that hard, but the conflict on what name stays is the need for a test case. So I agree with Ken, *Galtonia* could be a test case [not the best, there are other prevalent homonyms out there for this that would make great test cases], and this can be applied in anticipation of the PhyloCode, not neccessarily because of it, just to avoid confusion when the Code does hit. So too for other names. The more we trim and tuck, the less mess when the Code hits. Jaime A. Headden, Signing Off. Good Evening, Vietnam! --- well it's afternoon now, buyt who cares? :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/