Hymenoptera classification

[Richard Pyle]

> Without being able to cite a real example, I can imagine
> a situation where you are dealing with homonyms - they
> have exactly the same names, at least as far as genus and
> species components go, but apart form that, concept-wise,
> not even the type is in common.

O.K., well that's an issue of semantics (quite literally, "what's in a
name?").  I think of a pair of homonyms as unambiguously different "names"
that just happen to share the exact same string of characters to represent
them.  Of course, homonyms are PRIME opportunities for
misidentifications....

> This could be an
> example of a non-intersection that is not a
> misidentification; both are acceptable concepts but
> according to the rules, only one can validly bear the
> name.

Well, actually I would regard it as a misidentification, because I would
treat the two alternate homynyms as different "name" instances, with
different types, and so a confusion of one "name" with the taxon concept
that encompases only the other name's type would be an example of a
misidentification.  Again, I think it comes down to semantics (like so many
other points of discussion on this list....)

> > My technical definition of
> > a "misidentification" is the application of a taxon name
> > by a reference to a taxonomic concept or circumscription
> > that excludes the primary type of said name.
>
> yes... or it could simply be a 'misidentification' and you
> thought it was something else...  :)
>
> Thinking of it another way - the concept could be including
> the type but you are using the wrong concept...
> no, this never happens in taxonomy... :)

Hmmmm....not sure I follow on this....  maybe you can spell it out in terms
of examples (either real or hypothetical)?

Rich