[Taxacom] Cross-rank homonyms (in zoology)

[David Redei]

Dear Tony,

If your logic was right, then the species-group name Daphnia pulex
(Crustacea: Daphniidae) is a homonym of the genus-group name Pulex
(Siphonaptera: Pulicidae), the species-group name Dichotomius bos
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) is a homonym of the genus-group name Bos
(Mammalia: Bovidae), the species-group name Oncylocotis curculio
(Heteroptera: Enicocephalidae) is a homonym of the genus-group name
Curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and so on, there are literally
thousands of such. It is very evident that the current practice is *not *this,
no one considers these homonyms and no one replaces a species name if it
turns out that it is formed by the same string of characters than a generic
name or vice versa, and the same goes for any "cross-rank" homonyms. If
your logic was right, no tautonyms (Vulpes vulpes) would be possible, as a
genus-group name and a species-group name could not be identical.

Homonyms are only within a given rank: within the species-group, within the
genus-group, within the family-group. *Within the given group *their rank
does not matter, e.g. Physoderinae Miller, 1954 (a subfamily within
Heteroptera: Reduviidae) is a junior homonym of Physoderina Chaudoir, 1877
(a subtribe within Coleoptera: Carabidae), this is a logical consequence of
the Principle of Coordination (see Glossary). But they do not enter into
homonymy with names in another rank-group.

You are right that Art. 52 does not explicitly specify that homonymy is
only possible within a given rank-group, but the wording of Arts. 55, 56
and 57 implies this quite clearly. ICZN might consider to add a more
explicit remark about this in the chapter on homonymy in the next edition
of the Code.

With best regards,

David Redei

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 05:56, Tony Rees via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Greetings Taxacomers,
>
> A question has arisen on Wikispecies about the validity of a cross-rank
> homonym in zoology, namely subtribe Antimerina Brunke, Żyła & Solodovnikov,
> 2019 (Staphylinidae, Coleoptera, Animalia), junior homonym of the
> genus Antimerina Alluaud, 1898 (Carabidae, Coleoptera, Animalia), Ann. Soc.
> Ent. France, 66, 17, a name in current use.
>
> My reading of the relevant portion of the Code ("Article 52. Principle of
> Homonymy: 52.1. Statement of the Principle of Homonymy: When two or more
> taxa are distinguished from each other they must not be denoted by the same
> name.") is that it does not constrain potential homonymous names to be of
> the same rank, or group i.e. species-group, genus-group, family-group) and
> that therefore the name for the subtribe is invalid. Would this concur with
> the opinions of those more expert than myself?
>
> This topic did occur on Taxacom a while back (2002) where the few persons
> who commented seemed to come to the opposite conclusion (
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2002-March/087701.html), but I
> would contend that the statements therein are not in accordance with the
> Code. Further discussion / opinions invited...
>
> Regards - Tony
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
> www.irmng.org
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
>