Talk:Name-bearing type
 | A fact from Name-bearing type appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 February 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
References
I hope my adjustments to the references will not cause issue. I did my best to keep them minimal (and avoid templates :p). Circéus (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am at a loss as to what caused you to successively edit the references in three non-linked articles I wrote, and no others. You caught a few good points, but I have reverted most of it:
- Making the text smaller makes it harder to read for readers with bad eyesight. Clutter from a long list cannot be an issue because the list is at the very end of the article.
- Not italicizing titles agrees with several journals in the field; I see the italicization as needless formatting, and the journal title is clear anyway from punctuation.
- I don't know why you deleted the "subscription only" etcetera texts; they are useful in showing the reader what to expect before clicking the link.
- I prefer to keep the citations from Groves and Musser and Carleton in this article separate in order to keep the references concise and in order to give a little more information (page numbers) on each of their contributions. Ucucha 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Objective synonyms
The following brief discussion is copied from the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Objective synonyms, where it first took place. To avoid confusion, on this page I have edited the discussion slightly, to remove internal references to the Plants page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC) The discussion went as follows:
- I've been trying to understand Name-bearing type, but find it somewhat confusing. This might be because the article contains an error, or is not sufficiently clearly written, or just because I'm being a blockhead! The sentence which I'm having particular trouble with is the one which states that "Two taxa that have the same name-bearing type are called objective synonyms", because I had previously been under the impression that such synonyms were alternative names for what is actually the same (single) taxon, not for two. Any comments / explanations? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- As a botanist, I don't see why "name-bearing type" couldn't be replaced by "type" throughout. The lead paragraph has me stumped, and I'll have to read the cited references. My first thought is that of course the name "maculata" can be used if you use a broad circumscription, i.e. if you are a lumper, and if priority rules allow. Perhaps the last sentence of the first paragraph could be improved by adding "if narrowly defined to exclude the type of Trachylepis atlantica. Guess I'd fail zoological nomenclature. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is strictly a zoology concept that covers lectotypes, holotypes and neotypes, plus whatever else is used under the ICZN. The phrase you cite DOES have an error: a taxon in the biological sense is not a name in either system and vice versa! The problem is that (as far as I understand it) a "taxon" as defined in the code is an abstraction that is irredeemably associated with its name, it is NOT necessarily an actually biological entity, and the paragraph uses the term both in the taxonomic sense (taxa are also names and can be synonymous) and biological. I.e. the validity of a name does not imply the validity of the corresponding biological taxon, leading to subjective synonyms. Circéus (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- The revision ("two names that have the same name-bearing type are objective synonyms") still has a problem in that it doesn't include a reference to rank, which matters. Motacilla alba alba has (by definition) the same type as Motacilla alba, but that doesn't make the two names synonyms. So I think it should be "two names of the same rank that have the same name-bearing type are objective synonyms". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the comments and input on this, despite its non-plants content. I confess that I hadn't noticed that this is a strictly zoological arena until after I had posted the question. I originally arrived at the article via a link from lectotype, and didn't notice that botany had dropped out of the picture en route (maybe I am a blockhead after all....!). If no-one objects, I'll copy this discussion over to the article's talk page, and see if any zoologists want to chip in. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)]
- Many thanks for the comments and input on this, despite its non-plants content. I confess that I hadn't noticed that this is a strictly zoological arena until after I had posted the question. I originally arrived at the article via a link from
- The revision ("two names that have the same name-bearing type are objective synonyms") still has a problem in that it doesn't include a reference to rank, which matters. Motacilla alba alba has (by definition) the same type as Motacilla alba, but that doesn't make the two names synonyms. So I think it should be "two names of the same rank that have the same name-bearing type are objective synonyms". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is strictly a zoology concept that covers lectotypes, holotypes and neotypes, plus whatever else is used under the ICZN. The phrase you cite DOES have an error: a taxon in the biological sense is not a name in either system and vice versa! The problem is that (as far as I understand it) a "taxon" as defined in the code is an abstraction that is irredeemably associated with its name, it is NOT necessarily an actually biological entity, and the paragraph uses the term both in the taxonomic sense (taxa are also names and can be synonymous) and biological. I.e. the validity of a name does not imply the validity of the corresponding biological taxon, leading to subjective synonyms. Circéus (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- As a botanist, I don't see why "name-bearing type" couldn't be replaced by "type" throughout. The lead paragraph has me stumped, and I'll have to read the cited references. My first thought is that of course the name "maculata" can be used if you use a broad circumscription, i.e. if you are a lumper, and if priority rules allow. Perhaps the last sentence of the first paragraph could be improved by adding "if narrowly defined to exclude the type of Trachylepis atlantica. Guess I'd fail zoological nomenclature. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The page was amended slightly as a result of the above discussion. Any further comments welcome! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)