[Taxacom] Cross-rank homonyms (in zoology)

[David Campbell]

To be more confusing, Nuculoidea is a genus in the superfamily Nuculoidea,
in Bivalvia.  Also, the Code does not specifically regulate homonyms above
the familial level, so Pulmonata or Decapoda can be used in Mollusca and
Arthropoda.  However, such homonyms are a common source of confusion in
databases, just as disallowed homonyms are.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:09 AM Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Well, Art. 52 states the principle, and Art. 53-60 state
> what it means in practice (also see the Glossary). So,
> depending on semantics:
> * no, they are not homonyms (in the sense of the Code)
> * yes, they are homonyms, but this has no consequences;
>     both names can be valid.
>
> What the Code does not appear to regulate are
> homonyms above the family-group.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Op 28/01/2021 om 21:49 schreef Tony Rees via Taxacom:
> > 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.
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>


-- 
Dr. David Campbell
Associate Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
110 S Main St, #7270
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017