[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: GALTONIA THE FLOWER
Mickey and Mike,
Viruses have their own code and very distinctive names---no problem
there. Eubacteria and "Archaea" (Metabacteria) are covered by the
Bacteriological Code----rarely any problems, although interestingly Archaea
is a genus of spider (but I obviously object to Domain Archaea for reasons
more important than homonymy).
The real problems with homomyns are between botanical and zoological
codes. Botany covers fungi, higher plants, and any protists with
chloroplasts. Zoology claims animals and most protists without
chloroplasts. But botany and zoology have both claimed some groups that are
both motile and have chloroplasts, such as the euglenoids and some
dinoflagellates, so zoological Peranematida equals botanical
Heteronematales, Duboscquodinida equals Coccidiniales, and so on.
I'm not sure what they are going to do with Microsporidians, long
considered zoological protozoa, but recently found to be eumycotans (true
fungi, which utilize botanical names). Microsporidian genera will not be
much of a problem, but I wonder if they will now give botanical names to the
families and orders.
But most of the homonyms are Metaphyta and Metazoa, so there is little
chance of confusion there. The botanical Galtonia (a genus of monocot
hyacinths) is clearly not going to be confused with the zoological Galtonia.
The BioCode is supposed to take care of some of the problems where
zoological and botanical codes might clash, but not sure how well that is
going. And I don't know how PhyloCode is going to handle zoological and
botanical homonyms, but I suspect it will have some clashes with zoological,
botanical and the new BioCode, on these and other matters.
From: "Mickey_Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: GALTONIA THE FLOWER
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 19:22:48 -0800
Darren Naish wrote-
> I cannot find any plant name database on the www (my usual port of
> call is http://www.biosis.org.uk/triton/indexfm.htm) but assume that
> this was named before _Galtonia_ Hunt and Lucas 1994. I think I
> remember hearing that it's Ok for plant and animal taxa to bear the
> same names but, even so, I thought this was interesting.
This is a bit off-topic, but if a plant and animal can have the same name,
what about other organisms? Where does the definition of "animal" and
"plant" stop when it comes to nomenclature? Could you hypothetically name
chondrocyte the same thing as a demosponge? And what about fungi,
eubacteria, archaea and viruses, not to mention the many unicellular
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com