Taxacom: nomen nudum and synonymy question

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

The definition for "rank" given in the Glossary is this one:

rank, n. The level, for nomenclatural purposes, of a taxon in a 
taxonomic hierarchy (e.g. all families are for nomenclatural purposes at 
the same rank, which lies between superfamily and subfamily). The ranks 
of the family group, the genus group, and the species group at which 
nominal taxa may be established are stated in Articles 10.3, 10.4, 35.1, 
42.1 and 45.1.

A statement "there are three ranks in the Code: family-rank, genus-rank, 
and species-rank" would not be in line with this definition.

Ranks in the Glossary's sense are superfamily, family, subfamily, 
tribus, any lower division of tribus, genus, subgenus, any lower 
division of a subgenus, species, subspecies.

Glossary:

species group, n. In the zoological classification, the lowest-ranking 
group of taxa the names of which are regulated by the Code. The species 
group includes all taxa at the ranks of species and subspecies [Art. 45.1].

Synonymy:

An objective synonym is an available name, and it is not necessarily 
permanently invalid. If the senior name is preoccupied, a junior 
objective synonym can be used for the taxon if that name is not preoccupied.

Glossary:
synonym, n. Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote 
the same taxonomic taxon.

taxonomic taxon. A taxon (e.g. family, genus, species) including 
whatever nominal taxa and individuals a zoologist at any time considers 
it to contain in his or her endeavour to define the boundaries of a 
zoological taxon (q.v.). A taxonomic taxon is denoted by the valid name 
determined from the available names of its included nominal taxa.

This implies that only available names under the Code qualify for the 
term "synonym" in zoological nomenclature. Unavailable names can be 
called "synonyms" or other unavailable names or of available names in 
Wikipedia, but not in those scientific contexts where the applied 
terminology is based on the ICZN Code.

This looks quite logical, because an unavailable name or a name that is 
excluded from the provisions of the Code cannot have a name-bearing 
type, and thus it has no determined taxonomic identity, so a statement 
"synonym" would be arbitrary and could not be based on the Principle of 
Typification.

"name of the same rank" implies that species-group names are compared at 
the rank of species, or at the rank of subspecies.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 27.01.2023 um 19:26 schrieb Douglas Yanega via Taxacom:
> 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.
>