[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: GALTONIA THE FLOWER



Sorry to people who get this twice...

----- Original Message -----
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: "-PhyloCode Mailing List-" <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Cc: "-Dinosaur Mailing List-" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: GALTONIA THE FLOWER


> forwarded to some more appropriate forums
>
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Mickey_Mortimer wrote:
>
> > 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 a
> > chondrocyte the same thing as a demosponge?  And what about fungi,
> > eubacteria, archaea and viruses, not to mention the many unicellular
> > eukaryotes?

Do you mean cartilage cell by chondrocyte, or have I misunderstood that?
Cartilage cells aren't complete organisms and don't get scientific names of
their own...

> Trying to remember if PhyloCode (which is supposed to govern all Biota)
> covers the issue of duplicate names....

Just found a book on "Describing Species" in the biosciences library. The
codes are independent, and while within the area of one code homonymic
genera are forbidden, there are many examples of homonyms between plants and
animals, such as *Galtonia*.

Quoted from the PhyloCode:

"Note 12.2.1. In the case of homonymy involving names governed by two or
more preexisting codes (e.g., the application of the same name to a group of
animals and a group of plants), precedence is based on the date of
establishment under the PhyloCode. However, the International Committee on
Phylogenetic Nomenclature (see Art. 21) has the power to conserve a
later-established homonym over an earlier-established homonym. This might be
done if the later homonym is much more widely known than the earlier one."

"Note 13.2.3: The two kinds of definitional differences noted in Article
13.2 result in two kinds of homonyms. Homonyms of the first kind are
analogous to those that occur under the preexisting codes, whereas homonyms
of the second kind are unique to this code.

"Example 1: If Mukherjee defined *Prunella* as the name of the least
inclusive clade containing *Prunella modularis* Linnaeus 1758 and *Prunella
collaris* Scopoli 1769 (which are birds), and Larsen defined *Prunella* as
the name of the least inclusive clade containing *Prunella laciniata*
Linnaeus 1763, *Prunella grandiflora* Scholler 1775, *Prunella vulgaris*
Linnaeus 1753, and *Prunella hyssopifolia* Linnaeus 1753 (which are plants),
*Prunella* of Mukherjee and *Prunella* of Larsen would be homonyms of the
first kind."

Means, at present the two *Galtonia* are not homonyms, but will be as soon
as PhyloCode is enacted _and both *Galtonia* are defined as clades_. (I
don't know what would happen under the "Draft BioCode", probably they would
be homonyms immediately.) If/as long as they will not be defined as clades,
they won't be homonyms under PhyloCode, because they will not be governed by
it.

> So far as I know, the only codes governing organismal nomenclature are the
> ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature), the ICBN
> (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature), and the Bacteriological
> Code (International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria). I know these govern
> *at least* Animalia, Fungi + Plantae, and non-eukaryotan Biota,
> respectively (and probably more). That's a good question -- who governs
> organisms which don't fall in these categories?

Heh, heh. This seems to be fought upon. I've seen Dinophyta, Dinoflagellata,
Dinomastigota and Dinozoa in use for one and the same taxon, likewise
Euglenozoa, Euglenophyta and Euglenida... (big question in school: is
*Euglena viridis* an animal, or is it a flagellated alga??? :-D ); there are
zoological and botanical synonyms for smaller groups of unicellular
eukaryotes that are completely different, not just in their endings.

Originally, both ICBN and ICZN covered the kingdoms of the 2-kingdom system,
so they together covered all life; I don't know whether they still intend to
govern half of all eukaryotes each. The Bacteriological Code is derived from
ICBN and AFAIK retains the standardised botanical endings, like -ales for
orders.