Taxacom: nomen nudum and synonymy question

[Douglas Yanega]

On 1/27/23 9:56 AM, John Grehan via Taxacom wrote:
> Thanks Doug and Adam for the latest comments. In my list I (and colleagues)
> will generally not use abbreviations. As this article is purely digital
> (and open access) there are no space constraints.
>
> With respect to the definition (thanks) that "*synonym*, *n*. Each of two
> or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon." -
> would I be correct to understand from this that an infrasubspecific name
> such as an aberration cannot be considered a synonym?

The use of "rank" in the Code is not Linnaean rank - there are three 
ranks in the Code: family-rank, genus-rank, and species-rank.

The Code ranking system does not distinguish (e.g.) between family and 
superfamily or subfamily or tribe, or genus and subgenus, or species and 
subspecies. Your question regarding infrasubspecific names is actually a 
good one, however. I suppose the best answer I can give is the the ICZN 
might *not* technically classify it as a synonym, because it is 
unregulated and not strictly speaking of any rank at all. However, to a 
taxonomist, I suppose "synonym" could be taken as whatever they want it 
to be, because the Code does not regulate taxonomic decisions - and, as 
long as they communicate themselves to other taxonomists as to how they 
use the term.

As a somewhat parallel thing, anyone who spends time reading taxonomic 
articles in Wikipedia will note that what appear as "synonyms" under 
various names can include things like emendations, misspellings, 
infrasubspecific names, and even valid sub-taxa (e.g., a subspecies can 
appear as a "synonym" of the species it belongs to). Not everyone uses 
the term "synonym" as the Code defines it.

> With respect to:
>
> Article 45.6.4. it is subspecific if first published before 1961 and its
> author expressly used one of the terms ``variety" or "form" (including use
> of the terms "var.", "forma", "v." and "f."), unless its author also
> expressly gave it infrasubspecific rank, or the content of the work
> unambiguously reveals that the name was proposed for an infrasubspecific
> entity, in which case it is infrasubspecific (our emphasis).
>
> I take that to mean that subspecific names (or inferred before 1961 by var
> forma v and f) are considered to have the same rank as species and
> therefore qualify as synonyms?
>
> Sorry to gnaw over these details. Neve would have made a lawyer.

As noted above, species and subspecies are of the same rank, as the Code 
defines rank. It takes a little getting used to. ;-)

Peace.

-- 
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.ucr.edu%2F~heraty%2Fyanega.html&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ccfa9a13e7b2c4e6eea7f08db0093f4a6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638104407683602721%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sj1l274fm%2F%2Bx%2FVT6tx9WXIn84trU%2FCtxL%2FjLJKW05EE%3D&reserved=0
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82