369 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
369 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
head 1.16;
|
||
access;
|
||
symbols;
|
||
locks; strict;
|
||
comment @# @;
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.16
|
||
date 2007.03.06.17.30.00; author TWikiGuest; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.15;
|
||
|
||
1.15
|
||
date 2004.11.09.15.10.07; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.14;
|
||
|
||
1.14
|
||
date 2004.11.08.13.25.38; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.13;
|
||
|
||
1.13
|
||
date 2004.11.08.09.43.30; author NozomiJamesYtow; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.12;
|
||
|
||
1.12
|
||
date 2004.11.08.09.33.15; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.11;
|
||
|
||
1.11
|
||
date 2004.11.04.14.35.00; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.10;
|
||
|
||
1.10
|
||
date 2004.11.04.11.05.49; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.9;
|
||
|
||
1.9
|
||
date 2004.11.03.14.18.00; author SallyHinchcliffe; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.8;
|
||
|
||
1.8
|
||
date 2004.11.02.13.15.00; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.7;
|
||
|
||
1.7
|
||
date 2004.11.02.07.07.01; author RichardPyle; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.6;
|
||
|
||
1.6
|
||
date 2004.11.01.09.46.42; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.5;
|
||
|
||
1.5
|
||
date 2004.10.31.20.04.08; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.4;
|
||
|
||
1.4
|
||
date 2004.10.31.10.15.00; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.3;
|
||
|
||
1.3
|
||
date 2004.10.31.08.30.18; author RichardPyle; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.2;
|
||
|
||
1.2
|
||
date 2004.10.31.06.35.18; author RichardPyle; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next 1.1;
|
||
|
||
1.1
|
||
date 2004.10.31.05.24.26; author RichardPyle; state Exp;
|
||
branches;
|
||
next ;
|
||
|
||
|
||
desc
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.16
|
||
log
|
||
@Added topic name via script
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@---+!! %TOPIC%
|
||
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1100013007" format="1.0" version="1.15"}%
|
||
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="Trash.LinneanCoreDefinitionsDiscussion"}%
|
||
Discussion on the definition of [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#ProtonymDefinition][Protonym]], [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#BasionymDefinition][Basionym]], [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#ReplacedSynonymDefinition][Replaced Synonym]], and [[LinneanCoreDefinitions#OriginalNameDefinition][Original Name]]
|
||
|
||
Summary of previous discussion by Gregor, Rich, and Sally (please refer back to version r1.10 of this page for the original contributions):
|
||
* Rich's original definition about the equality of protonym and basionym was discussed and questioned.
|
||
* We worked out that in the botanical sense "basionym" is a relationship term rather than a kind of name (a name can <strong>have</strong> a basionym but can't <strong>be</strong> a basionym), and does not apply to replacement names:
|
||
* Richard: In my mind (not sure if this is true in the minds of other zoologists), Nomina novae/repl.names do not "have" a basionym. Rather, they are treated as objective (homotypic) synonyms. In zoology, I believe there is no authorship connection between the two names. Of course, in zoology we have no "Basionym", so there is no "name-level" connection between a Replacement name and the name that it replaces (other than the fact that, by definition, they are homotypic). -- 02 Nov 2004
|
||
* Gregor: Checking the bot. code (ICBN), basionym is defined as "name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym". The term basionym is avoided in the replacement name case ("nom. nov."). The term used in ICBN 33.3 for this is "replaced synonym". The authorship of the replaced name is not included in the case of replacement names in botany. From authorship formatting it is not visible that a botanical name is based on another name - it looks like an original name (nice that zoology and botany are similar here!).
|
||
* Rephrasing of the above by Rich to clarify: "in botanical practice, a name that is replaced is not, strictly speaking, the "basionym" in a "Nom. Nov." relationship; instead is is called "replaced synonym" in botany. This means that a Nom. Nov. has no Basionym."
|
||
* From email by Paul Kirk: "A basionym is a relationship term. A name is a name is a name, and although there has been a tendancy to label one type of name as a basionym (basal name) the word correctly defines the relationship between one name (the first in a series) and another name (a subsequent name - a New Combination). You are also correct that with this definition it makes no sense to say "This is a (the) basionym" without adding "basionym of ...". -- Paul
|
||
* Gregor: Basionym and replaced synonym are closely related: "To my (presumably botanical) thinking, nom. novum is a variant of comb. nov., i.e. a recombination which does not change the type concept. It has the extra problem that the epithet has to be changed; instead of only changing the genus part, you change both Genus and epithet. For many analysis purposes, and in regard to intellectual contributions of by two author teams, comb. nov. and nom. nov. are the same.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
A diagram attempting to clarify the terms:
|
||
See diagram (is this correct?):
|
||
<verbatim>
|
||
--------------- Protonym -------------------------- -------- --------- Derived name (?) --------------
|
||
- Original name -- -- Nom.nov./replacement name -- -- comb.nov./recombined name -- -- stat. nov. --
|
||
- (not based on -- ---- has replaced synonym ----- ------------------ has basionym ------------------
|
||
-- other name) --- ----------------- ## COMMON TERM FOR THIS? BasedOn? BasalName ## -------------------
|
||
</verbatim>
|
||
|
||
Gregor: I would love to have a term for the place marked with "##". I tend to think about it as "basionym", but clearly this differs from the usage in the ICBN. Something like "<nop>BasedOn" could be a single element in LC, there is no competition for it among the different creation types (tax. nov., stat. nov., comb. nov., nom. nov., see LCNameCreationTypeDiscussion). However, I don't fully like <nop>BasedOn, since a concept may also be based on another concept. <nop>BasedOn is a bit too general, I think. Paul Kirk used "BasalName" which may be better? *I propose to use this term in the <nop>LinneanCore!* - 7 Nov 2004
|
||
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
Gregor: It seems James proposes Basonym (not Basionyme) on LinneanCoreDefinitions as a name for the basal name. To me that seems to call for confusion, because those two are pronounced in English essentially the same, and even in writing they look very close. I would rather stay with <nop>BasalName in English. Although having another xxxnym in the series may be very tempting.
|
||
* JMS: Basonym is not my invention; it comes from ICNB. I picked it because I do not want to re-invent new jargon for already used one. Basionym is the earliest basonym; all basonyms are synonyms (perhaps). What we need is clearer terms and their translations to existing terms, just as the table provided by <nop>BioCode. - 08 Nov 2004
|
||
* Gregor: Thanks, I did not know that. If established forget the comment above. Googling tells me that a the term is used in bacteriology but I did not find Basonym in the ICBN context on the internet - can someone provide a definition of it? I see now that Rich himself provides a definition in the taxonomer publication: "Basonym<79> (without the <20>i<EFBFBD>) is defined in Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary as: "The earliest validly published name of a taxon, being in the case of a binomial or trinomial the source of the valid specific or subspecific epithet when the taxon is transferred to a new combination and in technical usage always accompanied by the name of the original author. (Crataegus spicata Lamark:Amelanchier spicata]" -- this leaves in my eyes the question open whether synonymy as James mentions is homotypic only or also heterotypic synonymy. -- PS: the definition also appears on a puzzle-page (sic!) listing all words ending with "nym": http://rec-puzzles.org/new/sol.pl/language/english/spelling/nym. - 08 Nov 2004
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
See also LCNomenNovumDiscussion. Conclusion of that: The relation-types basionym and replaced synonym point to a protonym and are not more specific. A comb. as well as nom. nov. can be based on either of original name or replacement name, depending on the situation.
|
||
|
||
(Related discussion: LCNewCombinationDiscussion)
|
||
|
||
%META:TOPICMOVED{by="GregorHagedorn" date="1099217704" from="UBIF.Protonym" to="UBIF.LCProtonymDiscussion"}%
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.15
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 2
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.14
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099920338" format="1.0" version="1.14"}%
|
||
d36 2
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.13
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="NozomiJamesYtow" date="1099907010" format="1.0" version="1.13"}%
|
||
d25 2
|
||
a26 1
|
||
Gregor: I would love to have a term for the place marked with "##". I tend to think about it as "basionym", but clearly this differs from the usage in the ICBN. Something like "<nop>BasedOn" could be a single element in LC, there is no competition for it among the different creation types (tax. nov., stat. nov., comb. nov., nom. nov., see LCNameCreationTypeDiscussion). However, I don't fully like <nop>BasedOn, since a concept may also be based on another concept. <nop>BasedOn is a bit too general, I think. Paul Kirk used "BasalName" which may be better? *I propose to use this term in the <nop>LinneanCore!*
|
||
d31 2
|
||
a32 2
|
||
|
||
JMS: Basonym is not my invention; it comes from ICNB. I picked it because I do not want to re-invent new jargon for already used one. Basionym is the earliest basonym; all basonyms are synomyms (parhaps). What we need is clearear terms and their translations to existing terms, just as the table provided by <nop>BioCode. -- 08 Nov 2004
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.12
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099906395" format="1.0" version="1.12"}%
|
||
d31 2
|
||
d35 2
|
||
a36 2
|
||
(Related discussion: LCNewCombinationDiscussion)
|
||
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.11
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099578900" format="1.0" version="1.11"}%
|
||
d27 3
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.10
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099566349" format="1.0" version="1.10"}%
|
||
d3 1
|
||
a3 1
|
||
Gregor: I would hope for a revision of protonym, and perhaps a definition where nom. nov. / replacement name appears.
|
||
d5 13
|
||
a17 4
|
||
Gregor (from LinneanCoreDomain page): I think the comb. nov. or nomen nov. should refer to the *protonym* by id. If instead we think we have to flatten the schema and include rather than refer the *protonym* data, then we do have two publications. However, if the object instance describes a *protonym* (basionym) itself the combination elements should be missing rather than duplicated. (I still have trouble with the term protonym, what I say is really true for basionym, whereas I know that you consider a nom. nov. recombination as a *protonym*. In this case another referred or included protonym exists, even though the LC object instance is in zoology considered a *protonym* - but not in botany a basionym.
|
||
* Richard: Can you elaborate? Do you mean that you think that a Replacement Name should be the same *protonym* as the name it replaces, or should it be a separate *protonym*? I have no strong feelings either way. I've been operating under the assumption that they are separate *protonyms*, because they have separate authorships. -- 30 Oct 2004 HST
|
||
* Gregor: Rich, I try to follow your protonym usage, but I find it difficult. Your question above is very specific to zoological thinking and I cannot answer it, because I do not understand it. To my (presumably botanical) thinking, nom. novum is a variant of comb. nov., i.e. a recombination which does not change the type concept. It has the extra problem that the epithet has to be changed. Instead of only changing the genus part, you change both the Genus and epithet. That is a technicality. For all analysis purposes, nom. nov. and comb. nov. are the same. I think I cannot answer your question because you introduce a concept of "authorship" that I suspect to be zoological. If a name is combined into a new genus, part of its authorship remains, and part of the authorship is new. It is a combination. I have no problems with zoological usage of *not* stating the combining authorship. If a nomen novum is created, the same is true. Only the rules for authorship *citation* in zoology depend on this difference, whereas they are indentical in botany. I use "authorship *citation*" to state that I view this as rendering, formatting rules, not as essence of authorship. Is it not that in zoology, if you would study intellectual contributions, a combination and replacement name have equal contributions by two author teams? -- I hope you can gather from my attempts something that helps us to clarify the definition of protonym! -- 31 Oct 2004
|
||
* Gregor: At the moment is seems to me that the term basionym is more appropriate to confer the communality of a comb. nov. and nom. nov. (= repl. name) in having a name they are based upon. The protonym is superclass for basionym name (first circumscription, defining a new type) and replacement name. A basionym never is based on another basionym. A replacement name is based on a basionym, as is a recombined name. See diagram (is this correct?):
|
||
d19 4
|
||
a22 4
|
||
------------------ Protonym ---------------------- ------------------ Derived name (?) ---------------
|
||
----- Basionym ----- -- Nomen novum/repl.name -- -- comb. nov./recombined name -- -- stat. nov. --
|
||
-- (not based on --- -- has replaced synonym --- -------------------- has basionym -----------------
|
||
-- other name) ----- ---------------------- ## COMMON TERM FOR THIS? BasedOn? ## --------------------
|
||
d24 2
|
||
a25 4
|
||
* Richard: O.K. -- now I understand the issue more clearly -- thank you for the diagram above (it is very helpful!). In my mind (not sure if this is true in the minds of other zoologists), Nomina nova[?]/repl.names do not "have" a basionym. Rather, they are treated as objective (homotypic) synonyms. In botany, is the authorship of the Basionym included anywhere within the authorship of its Nomen novum? In zoology, I believe there is no authorship connection between the two names. Of course, in zoology we have no "Basionym", so there is no "name-level" connection between a Replacement name and the name that it replaces (other than the fact that, by definition, they are homotypic). -- 02 Nov 2004
|
||
* Gregor: you are correct, I checked the bot. code, and indeed basionym is defined as "name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym" and the term basionym is avoided in the replacement name case, the term used in ICBN 33.3 is "replaced synonym". And no, the authorship of the replaced name is not included in the case of nom. nov. (nice that zoology and botany are similar here!). I corrected my diagram above accordingly. I also introduced the case of "stat. nov." -- I would love to have a term for the place marked with "##". I used basionym, and think it is an intuitive term for it, but this would differ from usage in botanical code. something like "<nop>BasedOn" could be a single element in LC, there is no competition for it among the different creation types (tax. nov., stat. nov., comb. nov., nom. nov., see LCNameCreationTypeDiscussion). However, I don't fully like <nop>BasedOn, since a concept may also be based on another concept. <nop>BasedOn is a bit too general, I think.
|
||
* Gregor: Restatement of the above by Rich, I think I did not communicate well: "in botanical practice, a name that is replaced is not, strictly speaking, the "Basionym" of the Nom. Nov.; but is instead the "replaced synonym". This means that a Nom.
|
||
Nov. has no Basionym." -- this is why I am looking for a new term.
|
||
d28 1
|
||
a28 1
|
||
Sally: sorry to join in half way through the conversation here ... but having looked at the proposed schema I'm now confused. I thought Rich's original definition of a protonym was 'the basionym or the replaced synonym' - i.e. the original newly described taxon. Other names (new combinations, new names in the bot. sense) can <strong>have</strong> protonyms but they can't <strong>be</strong> protonyms. I <i>think</i> we're agreed that LinneanCore must be able to handle both newly describe taxa and newly combined or whatever names. But the version I have of the schema has things like 'ProtonymLocalKey' and 'ProtonymAuthors'- which are required, and there's no space for a non-protonym author string. That made me think that Protonym had been extended to also include new combinations and new names... which is the case? All names <strong>are</strong> protonyms ? Or all names either <strong>have or are</strong> protonyms? ... for now when drawing up the schema I am going to label things based on 'NameRecord' (the root element) when I want to refer to something that could be any type of name (protonym or whatever). Hence: 'NameRecordId', 'NameRecordAuthorTeam'. That way Protonym can be reserved unambiguously for those base names.
|
||
d30 2
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.9
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="SallyHinchcliffe" date="1099491480" format="1.0" version="1.9"}%
|
||
d17 3
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.8
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099401300" format="1.0" version="1.8"}%
|
||
d17 3
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.7
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099379221" format="1.0" version="1.7"}%
|
||
d10 4
|
||
a13 3
|
||
--------------------- Protonym ---------------------- --------- Derived name (?) -----------
|
||
------ Basionym ------ -- Nomen novum/repl.name -- -- combinatio novum/recombined name --
|
||
-- has no basionym --- -------------------- has basionym -----------------------------------
|
||
d15 2
|
||
a16 2
|
||
* Richard: O.K. -- now I understand the issue more clearly -- thank you for the diagram above (it is very helpful!). In my mind (not sure if this is true in the minds of other zoologists), Nomina nova[?]/repl.names do not "have" a basionym. Rather, they are treated as objective (homotypic) synonyms. In botany, is the authorship of the Basionym included anywhere within the authorship of its Nomen novum? In zoology, I believe there is no authorship connection between the two names. Of course, in zoology we have no "Basionym", so there is no "name-level" connection between a Replacement name and the name that it replaces (other than the fact that, by definition, they are homotypic). -- 02 Nov 2004
|
||
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.6
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099302402" format="1.0" version="1.6"}%
|
||
d13 2
|
||
a14 1
|
||
</verbatim>
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.5
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 2
|
||
a2 2
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099253048" format="1.0" version="1.5"}%
|
||
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="LinneanCoreDefinitionsDiscussion"}%
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.4
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1099217700" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
|
||
d8 7
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.3
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099211418" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
|
||
d7 2
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.2
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099204518" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
|
||
d4 3
|
||
a6 1
|
||
* Richard: Can you elaborate? Do you mean that you think that a Replacement Name should be the same Protonym as the name it replaces, or should it be a separate Protonym? I have no strong feelings either way. I've been operating under the assumption that they are separate Protonyms, because they have separate authorships. -- 30 Oct 2004 HST
|
||
@
|
||
|
||
|
||
1.1
|
||
log
|
||
@none
|
||
@
|
||
text
|
||
@d1 1
|
||
a1 1
|
||
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RichardPyle" date="1099200266" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
|
||
a2 1
|
||
|
||
a4 2
|
||
|
||
-- Main.RichardPyle - 31 Oct 2004
|
||
@
|