GregorHagedorn - Mon Nov 08 2004 - Version 1.15 Parent topic: LinneanCore Homonym = same name-literal (without authors, within one code of nomenclature) published independently by the same authors in different publications, or by different authors for a taxonomic object based on different types (= "heterotypic homonym-situation").
Richard: Does ICBN distinguish between 1° (Primary) Homonyms and 2° (Secondary) Homonyms? -- 08 Nov 2004
Gregor: I don't think under these terms. What are the zoological definitions? -- 08 Nov 2004
Isonym = special case where two identical, independently published name-literals are based on the same type (= "homotypic homonym-situation"). ICBN avoids defining Isonym as a special case of homonym - see discussion below, making it clear that two name-literals referring to the same name-object are strictly speaking synonyms, although from a practical standpoint they may be difficult to distinguish from homonyms
Isonym = special case where two identical, independently published name-literals are based on the same type (= "homotypic homonym-situation"). ICBN avoids defining Isonym as a special case of homonym - see discussion below, making it clear that two name-literals referring to the same name-object are strictly speaking synonyms, although from a practical standpoint they may be difficult to distinguish from homonyms
ICBN, §6.3: "Note 1. When the same name, based on the same type, has been published independently at different times by different authors, then only the earliest of these so-called "isonyms" has nomenclatural status. The name is always to be cited from its original place of valid publication, and later "isonyms" may be disregarded. -- Ex. 1. Baker (Summary New Ferns: 9. 1892) and Christensen (Index Filic: 44. 1905) independently published the name Alsophila kalbreyeri as a substitute for A. podophylla Baker (1891) non Hook. (1857). As published by Christensen, Alsophila kalbreyeri is a later "isonym" of A. kalbreyeri Baker, without nomenclatural status (see also Art. 33 Ex. 10). -- Ex. 2. In publishing "Canarium pimela Leenh. nom. nov.", Leenhouts (in Blumea 9: 406. 1959) reused the illegitimate C. pimela K. D. König (1805), attributing it to himself and basing it on the same type. He thereby created a later "isonym" without nomenclatural status."
Proposal: I believe in contrast to the opinion from ICBN cited above, LinneanCore should trace Isonyms. From a consumer perspective, no difference exists between heterotypic homonyms, homotypic homonyms = isonyms, and homonyms not yet in the providers database. It is not possible whenever a name-with-nomenclatural citation is not found, to assume it must be an isonym that the nomenclator disregarded. Thus information about the isonym status of a name must be explicit.
-- Main.GregorHagedorn - 02 Nov 2004
Discussion:
James: "name" under the same Code; the same name-literal (string?) used to designate different target objects under different Codes, aren't homonyms. --JMS -- Gregor: Yes, strictly only within one code, thanks. I wonder what to call names under different codes? However, is has nothing to do with name-string or name-literal, the concept of a name-object in the code is an abstract one. The two (hypothetical) names "Aplosoma jamesoni Author1" and "Haplosoma jamesonii Author2" under the botanical code are "treated as" homonyms (compare ICBN 53.3), even though the exact definition of a homonym requires "spelled exactly like a name based on a different type" (ICBN 53.1). However the spelling differences in the example are extremely close ("ii"/"i", "Aplo"/"Haplo") and require grammatical correction under ICBN. -- Gregor
JMS: The latter part (However ...) is unclear for me. Those two hypothetical name-strings are different in their token (Author1 or Author2), so we have two different name-strings designating to a single object, i.e. two names (as relationshp between name-string and object). Homonymy is a relationship between name literals of a language designating to a single object. We don't have term for name-literals of different languages designating to a single object; it is translation issue. -- 03 Nov 2004
Gregor: Can you give us a reference for the definition of homonymy you use? If I understand you correctly it is diametrally opposed to the definition used in biology (I added the exact ICBN §§ above; this conforms with BioCode and I believe also with ICZN). My example introduces not two names for a single object, but two nomenclatural name objects created by the two different authors. -- 03 Nov 2004
JMS: My (deleted) confusion comes from that isonyms are not homonyms but synonyms if we include authority as a part of a name literal; homotypic homonym does not make sense. I should say: Homonymy is a relationship between names of a language having the same name literal but designating different objects. Isonymy is a kind of synonymy, and the above hypothetical name literals are homonyms if they based on different types as mentioned in ICBN 53.3. If these name litrals share the type, theny they are synonyms. -- 04 Nov 2004
Gregor: Thanks, that helps me to understand why ICBN avoids a statement that "isonym is a subclass of homonym", which it is from a practical standpoint. Also note that ICBN has the categories "is homonym" and "treated as homonym". The superclass of these is what is relevant for nomenclatural status of a name. I don't have a name for that though.
JMS: I still do not understand why isonym is homotypic homonym. Anything homotypic with different name literals (including authority part) can't be homonym; they are synonyms. -- 04 Nov 2004
Gregor: At least the botanical code defines name as without authors. We had that problem elsewhere in the name-string discussion as well. From the standpoint of nomenclatural creation, a name is without authors; from the standpoint of name-usage in botany it is normally considered to include authors. That is why I feel uneasy about the definition of any name-string as without authors; it takes sides - and the side of the much smaller community. -- Gregor 5.Nov. 2004
Richard: My logic leads me to a different conclusion. Precisely because the Codes define Homonyms as strings that are identical without authorship attributes, the Codes view a "Name" as the elements excluding authorship elements. Thus, the fundamental "Name-string", in this sense, is Name-without-authorship; and authorship is simply an embellishment at presentation time to make it easier for the human reader to not be confused by homonymy. -- 08 Nov 2004
JMS: I still have difficulty to understand. Homonymy is a relationship between names (as relationship) having the same name literal but designating different objects. In case of isonym sensu ICBN, what different objects are designated? Different circumscriptions containing the same type specimen? Because they are homotypic, they should have the same name whatever circumscriptions are, basically, shouldn't they? -- Nov 05 2004
Gregor: Isonyms have the same name-literal without author, but different publication citation. Since name-literal-with-authorship is the basis for citing names in a name usage context, they are relevant in that context. They are irrelevant for the code concerned not with usage, but creation of names. Although they refer to independent creations of nomenclatural objects, these objects are not operationally different. The code can thus ignore or discard any later isonyms. However, I propose to express them in LC, because on the usage side they do exist. I think it is simpler to express them as LC name records (the two records will have same name-string without authors, same type specimen, but different publication citations). Alternatively, the could be treated as name variants. -- In general: I believe the objects of the nomenclatural codes are NOT taxon concepts (circumscriptions), but nomenclatural objects. These are is a combination of publication, name, and a relation to a type specimen. A circumscription/taxon concept object is implied (it is the reason for doing nomenclature), but it is considered not operational and therefore not used as the basis for most nomenclatural rules. (Some rules make a secondary reference, e.g. when selecting a lectotype, the researcher has to claim having considered the concepts - but the actual correspondence is not required.) -- Gregor 5. Nov. 2004
JMS: It doesn't explain why you think isonmy is a homonym. It may be homonym as name literal of concepts (because circumscription by authors may differ), but it is not in scope of LinneanCore, as you wrote. If we have only one name literal of isonym in LinneanCore, we can't express relationship between isonyms because there is only one name literal. So it is unnecessary to think of isonym in LinneanCore. It is task of who mind name usages (rather than taxon concept in ordinary sense). -- 05 Nov 2004