[Previous by date - Fwd: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Hi]
[Next by subject - Re: Hybrid specifiers]
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Mailing List - PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes
--- Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu> wrote: > The problem you perceive disappears if you think=20 > of Ficus L. 1753 and Ficus R. 1798 as different=20 > names that happen to be spelled the same way,=20 > rather than the same name. This is consistent=20 > with the definition of homonym in the PhyloCode=20 > glossary. Which type you use as an internal=20 > specifier depends on which name you are=20 > converting. If you are converting Ficus L. 1753=20 > as the name of a clade of plants, you would use=20 > the type specimen of that name as an internal=20 > specifier. If you are converting Ficus R. 1798=20 > as the name of a clade of snails, you would use=20 > its type as an internal specifier. But homonyms may not be given equal precedence under the Phylocode: "13.3. If two or more definitions have been established for identical= ly spelled names, the only acceptable name (i.e., the combination of name and de= finition; see Note 12.1.1) is the first one established under this code. A late= r homonym, unless conserved, is not an acceptable name of any taxon." Thus, if _Ficus_ were defined using the the snail species, any later = attempt to define a clade named _Ficus_ using the fig species would not be accep= ted (unless conserved, in which case the snail-based taxon becomes unacce= pted). =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =09 =09=09 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail=20