Skip to content
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
115 lines (71 sloc) 15.1 KB
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1316797394" format="1.1" version="1.35"}%
---+!! %TOPIC%
These are some definitions proposed for use in further discussion. Note that the word "name" is not on this list without some sort of qualification. We should all try to avoid using the word "name" without an explicit context. All definitions assume the scope of nomenclature defined for <nop>LinneanCore's domain, which is *tentatively* the Code-governed scientific names, plus possibly Trade Names, plus possibly some non-code-governed extensions of code-governed names [races, etc.], plus Linnean-type names used above the rank of Family (not technically governed by the Codes of Nomenclature -- at least not ICZN/ICBN. Please feel free to comment/amend/etc., using the topics provided at the end of each definition. - 30 Oct 2004
<b>Rank</b>: A specific, most-precise taxonomic rank (including intermediate ranks, such as "Subgenus", "Subspecies", etc.). See [[TaxonomicRankEnum][TaxonomicRankEnum]]. -- [[TaxonomicRankDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Rank-group</b>: The "full" ranking groups. Within the context of Codes of nomenclature, these include only "Family-group", "Genus-group", and "Species-group". However, we will also need to deal with "Order-group", "Class-group", "Phylum-group", and "Kingdom-group" entities as well. Although "Phylum-group" is Zoo-centric, "Division" is used for different [[#RankDefinition][ranks]] by different disciplines (even different sub-disciplines within Zoology), and "Phylum" is only used for one [[#RankDefinition][ranks]]. Therefore, it makes more sense to use "Phylum-group", "Phylum", "Subphylum", etc. -- and assume that these are all precisely synonymous with the botanical "Division" equivalencies. -- [[LCRankGroupDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Name</b>: A relationship between a name-literal (and hence name-string) and a named-object. It is recommeded to avoid this word as possible, but sometime inevitable.
<b>Name-literal</b>: A literal word (or words) designating at least one object. A single name-literal may designate multiple objects (homonymy) and multiple name-literals may designate single object (synonymy). A name-literal is an abstraction of a set of [[#NameUsageDefinition][name-usages]]. A [[#NameStringDefinition][name-string]] is an electronic representation of a name-literal. A name-literal may have [[#VariantSpellingDefinition][variant spellings]]; each variant is represented by a [[#NameStringDefinition][name-string]]. -- [[LCNameLiteralDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Name-string</b>: The Unicode string equivalent of [[#NameLiteralDefinition][name-literal]] printed on paper or represented in an electronic document to indicate a scientific name within the scope of <nop>LinneanCore's domain. It does *not* include authorship, but does include markup such as parentheses around infrageneric/supraspecific [[#NameUnitDefinition][Name-units]], and infraspecific rank terms (e.g., subsp., var., f. etc.). -- [[LCNameStringDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Name-string&nbsp;with&nbsp;authorship</b>: A [[#NameStringDefinition][Name-string]] that includes the Code-appropriate authorships embedded within the [[#NameStringDefinition][name-string]]. -- [[LCNameStringDiscussionWithAuthorship][Discussion]]
<b>Name-unit</b>: A portion of a multi-part [[#NameStringDefinition][name-string]] that constitutes one discrete [[#RankDefinition][Rank]]. There do not appear to be any cases where a single name-unit would contain a space (" "), but it may include a hyphen ("-") or other characters outside the standard letters. It is a token composing name-string, technically. -- [[LCNameUnitDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Name-usage</b>: The appearance of a [[#NameStringDefinition][Name-string]] within a [[#ReferenceDefinition][Reference]]. -- [[LCNameUsageDiscussion][Discussion]]
(Here some preliminary attempt by Gregor to clarify the Protonym/Basionym confusion, therefore for the moment not alphabetical:)
<b>Basionym</b>: A role a name can have in relation to another name which is explicitly based upon the basionym name. Specifically, in genus or rank changing recombinations ("comb. nov.", "stat. nov.") the new name is based on a basionym name. The basionym of a name is always a [[#ProtonymDefinition][Protonym]] (= [[#OriginalNameDefinition][Original Name]] or [[#ReplacementNameDefinition][Replacement Name]]). The role of the basionym is very similar to the role of the [[#ReplacedSynonymDefinition][Replaced Synonym]] in the case of "nom. nov.". [[LCProtonymDiscussion][Discussion]] <!-- [[#BasionymDefinition][Basionym]] -->
<b>Basal&nbsp;Name</b>&nbsp;or&nbsp;<b>basonym</b>: A role name for a name in a nomenclatural relationship, including [[#BasionymDefinition][Basionym]] and [[#ReplacedSynonymDefinition][Replaced Synonym]]. -- [[LCProtonymDiscussion][Discussion]] <!-- [[#BasalNameDefinition][Basal Name]] -->
<b>Comment by F. Bungartz, Botanische Staatssammlung München, 12. January 2005</b>:
This seperate definition distinguishing basal name from basionym does not make any sense to me! Basonym, Basinym and Basionym are only spelling variants of essentially the same (see Dictionary of Fungi, 9th edition, 2001, page 61)! I do not understand the comment in the Discussion, that the Basionym (with "i") is supposedly the oldest Basal Name (= Basonym, without "i"). There are never several basal name! Every recombination goes back to the earliest legitimate name, which acts as a basal name (= basionym, basonym, basinym). To suggest that there is a succession of several basal names is nonsence (at least in Botanical Nomenclature). If the Zoological Nomenclature does not know the term basionym, how can it recognize the term basonym? This hardly makes sense.
<b>Replaced&nbsp;Synonym</b>: A role a name can have in relation to another name which is explicitly based upon the replaced synonym name. For example, if genus or rank changing recombinations would result in the creation of homonyms, a new epithet name has to be introduced to replace the previous epithet of the "Replaced Synonym". The replaced&nbsp;synonym of a name is always a [[#ProtonymDefinition][Protonym]] (= [[#OriginalNameDefinition][Original Name]] or [[#ReplacementNameDefinition][Replacement Name]]). This role is very close to a [[#BasionymDefinition][Basionym]], but ICBN (33.3) avoids the term basionym and uses this term instead. [[LCProtonymDiscussion][Discussion]] <!-- [[#ReplacedSynonymDefinition][Replaced Synonym]] -->
<b>Replacement&nbsp;Name</b>: A new name that replaces an existing name (= [[#ReplacedSynonymDefinition][Replaced Synonym]]). [[LCProtonymDiscussion][Discussion]] <!-- [[#ReplacementNameDefinition][Replacement Name]] -->
<b>Original&nbsp;Name</b>: A name that introduces a new epithet and originally designates a type specimen (or other typification, including iconotype etc.). Multiple original names may accidentially based on the same type specimen. However, cases where a name is explicitly based to an older name (comb. nov,, stat. nov., nom. nov.) should not be considered original names. -- [[LCProtonymDiscussion][Discussion]] <!-- [[#OriginalNameDefinition][Original Name]] -->
<b>Protonym</b>: A name that introduced a new epithet the first time. This is the case in [[#OriginalNameDefinition][Original Names]] (not based on previously published nomenclatural names) and in the case of [[#ReplacementNameDefinition][Replacement Names]] (= "nom. nov.", = avowed substitute). -- [[LCProtonymDiscussion][Discussion]] <!-- [[#ProtonymDefinition][Protonym]] -->
<b>Comment by F. Bungartz, Botanische Staatssammlung München, 12. January 2005</b>:
This definition is NOT in accordance with the concept of a protonym as originally introduced by Donk (1960, original citations see below). Donk emphasizes that a protonym is a name that has effectively, but not validly been published. The definition given here, at the Linnean Core Website, does not make any statement about the way a protonym was published. On the contrary, it only suggests, that ANY name that ever was introduced for the first time is a protonym. This is not correct. Original names that have both been effectively and validly published are not protonyms, even though the definition presented here would just suggest that. Also, Replacement Names (= "nom. nov.", = avowed substitute) can be published both effectively as well as validly. Therefore, both Original Names as well as Replacement Names are NOT necessarily identical with protonyms!!!
In my opinion there is no reason to treat both Original Name and Replacement Name under one common definition. They are not the same and have little in common! An Original Name is ANY first name ever introduced for a species. It is only available for use if effectively AND validly published. However, any original name may nevertheless constitute a later homonym, i.e., if it is LITERALLY the same name as another name, which was previously effectively and validly published, but obviously based on a different type. In that case the particular name (the later homonym) is illegitimate and a new name may be introduced as a legitimate Replacement Name (= Replacement Name for an Original Name). This kind of Replacement Name will persist in all new combinations, i.e., it will become a Basionym for any new combination that takes place.
A second, very different case, is the introduction of a replacement name if otherwise a new combination would create an illegitimate name (= Replacement Name for an illegitimate New Combination). This is the case for a species epithet that cannot be transferred into another genus because this would there create a name identical to a name that already exists. This second kind of Replacement Name (a combination with a new species epithet) will disappear as soon as another combination is made. Thus, this second kind of Replacement Name will never become a Basionym because any a second recombination has to use the original epithet instead of the newly introduced epithet.
If indeed it is necessary to recognize a term that combines both Original Name and Replacement Name, I would suggest to use "Earliest Legitimate Name". The earliest legitimate name is a name that is effectively and validly published AND has no earlier homonym. It will most often be an original name but it may also be a replacement name of an original name that was a later homonym.
Below the relevant citations for protonym...
Dictionary of Fungi (9th edition, 2001, page 427):
Protonym (in nomenclature), a name effectively but not validly published after the starting point for the group.
Donk, Persoonia 1: 175, (1960, page 175):
Protonym. Neither a devalidated nor validly published, though effectively published, name, taken up and validly published afterwards.
and before, Donk, Persoonia 1: 175, (1960, page 174):
Devalidated names are those names that would have been validly published if no later starting-points had been introduced.
<b>New&nbsp;combination</b>: A re-use of a previously-existing [[#ProtonymDefinition][Protonym]] (= [[#OriginalNameDefinition][Original Name]] or [[#ReplacementNameDefinition][Replacement Names]]) in a different nomenclatural context. In the botany world these are thought of as discrete "names", separate from their [[#ProtonymDefinition][protonyms]]; but in Zoology they are usually thought of as merely different contextual usages of a pre-existing "name" ([[#ProtonymDefinition][protonym]]). Although ICZN does not have any rules to determine which "revised contextual usages" of pre-existing [[#ProtonymDefinition][protonyms]] constitute an "official" New Combination, in most cases it will be more or less unambiguously determinable who first placed a pre-existing species epithet into a different nomenclatural context. In any case, New combinations ONLY in the context of a particular kind of usage that represents a subsequent use of a pre-existing [[#ProtonymDefinition][protonym]] in a novel nomenclatural context (e.g., the first placement of an existing species epithet into a different genus than the epithet was originally described in (i.e., the nomenclatural context of it's [[#ProtonymDefinition][Protonym]]). -- [[LCNewCombinationDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Variant&nbsp;spelling</b>: This term refers to variant spellings (i.e., slightly different [[#LCNameStringDiscussion][Name-strings]]) used for what is otherwise a pre-existing [[#ProtonymDefinition][Protonym]] or [[#NewCombinationDefinition][New Combination]]. These include intentional variations (e.g., alternate gender forms of Species-group epithets), as well as unintentional variations (i.e., [[#LapsusDefinition][Lapsus]]). Variant spellings exist ONLY in the context of a [[#NameUsageDefinition][Name-usage]]. -- [[LCVariantSpellingDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Lapsus</b>: A particular kind of [[#VariantSpellingDefinition][Variant spelling]] that represents an unintentional alternate [[#NameStringDefinition][Name-string]] (e. g., typographical error). -- [[LCLapsusDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Reference</b>: Any form of DOCUMENTED date-stamped instance of one or more Authors (Agents). This is broadly defined to include forms of documentation outside the context of [[#PublicationDefinition][Publications]]. "Documented" means that at least one physical (paper) or "permanent" electronic representation/facsimilie of information presented by Agent-Authors at a specific date/time is archived somewhere. Besides [[#PublicationDefinition][Publications]], these can include things like written personal communication (or archived representation of verbal personal communication), specimen labels, field notebooks, etc., etc. -- [[LCReferenceDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Documentation</b>: Synonym of the [[#ReferenceDefinition][Reference]] with less ambiguity; the word 'reference' is also used as relationship, just like the word 'name' can be used either name-string or name-object-relationship. -- Discussion on [[LCReferenceDiscussion][Reference]] and [[LCPublicationDiscussion][Publication]]
<b>Publication</b>: A special subset of [[#ReferenceDefinition][References]] that have been "published" in some way (perhaps best to define "publication" in accordance with ICZN/ICBN rules governing publications????) -- [[LCPublicationDiscussion][Discussion]]
<b>Unpublished&nbsp;Documentation</b>: Permanently documented information (e.g. on paper, in digital format) that has not been published to a wider audience. This includes letters, laboratory or field books. It does not include forms of information attribution like "pers. comm.", which are not documented in any way. (Gregor) -- [[LCUnpublishedDocumentationDiscussion][Discussion]]
(see also LinneanCoreSomePrivateConceptDefinitions)
You can’t perform that action at this time.