Taxonomic names should be unique and taxon specific. The reason is that in case subsequent research or new information can cause the movement of species to a different genus, which should then not have the same name. However, since it is extremely unlikely that species would be transferred from one Phylum to another, identical taxonomic names might be allowed in case they fall under different Phyla. But is that indeed the case?
Yes, it is, and indeed there are some identical generic names in zoology and botany - e.g. Prunella.(a bird) can meet Prunella (a herbaceous plant) in the same European forest.
Yes, as the naming of animals and plants are regulated by different nomenclaturial codes, it is allowed to use the same name for plats and animals, but I would not recommend it
Generally you may be right, but as more and more animals and plants are being discovered, and especially as the "current fashion of ‘split first and think later (if at all)’..." is increasingly spreading (partly as a result of propagation of cladistic classiications, making "necessary" to split more and more well defined, homogeneous taxa only because somebody considers them "paraphyletic"), the number of possible more or less pronounceable combinations of letters becomes insufficient even within one of the "Kingdoms"...
I don't think we are going to run out of pronounceable names. Let imagine you have a genus whose name is a four-syllable latinized word like CVCVCVCus. Since there are 21 consonnants and 5 vowels, there are 24 millions of possible names of that form. We have named only 1,6 million of species until now. I have not even considered words having a more complex form with complex consonant or vowel clusters.
So I would recommend not to use the same name for a plant and an animal. Furthermore, the distinct nomenclatural codes should be united in a single BioCode in the future (not too far future I hope).
Dear Sandra,
as previous colleagues noted and following the ICZN (1.4) "the name of an animal taxon is not to be rejected merely because it is identical with the name of a taxon that is not animal" (see also 10.5). Nevertheless, as for some organisms, the kingdom they belong is not clear at fist sight and may be later transfered from plants to animals or vice versa, I also think that giving same generic names is not a good practice. I dont know what example you may have in your mind but a couple of years ago I asked the same for Duboisia wich appears either as a plant and as a bovid. The code does not however give advices on how to deal in such cases.
The ICZN says: 52.7. Homonymy with names of taxa which are not animals. The name of an animal taxon identical with the name of a taxon which has never been treated as animal is not a homonym for the purposes of zoological nomenclature [Arts. 1.4, 2.2].
Yes, code of nomenclature allows it. Eg. Genus name Morus. The name of Mulbery plant is Morus alba where as sea bird Northern Gannet is Morus bassanus
Thank you all for your clear and concise answers! To conclude, yes, it is allowed as long as the taxa belong to different Kingdoms, but if one has the chance, it's better to avoid it; for earlier named taxa, it poses no problem. And Roman Holynski, I particularly liked the part "current fashion of ‘split first and think later (if at all)’.. in your answer. It's indeed a worrying trend, especially if it further endangers current species by artificially reducing the number of individuals that are 'allowed' to form part of the gene pool.
Well, indeed, Damien is formally right, in my answer I - wishing to keep my answer short - have somewhat oversimplified it. pronounceable letter-combinations are, indeed, much more than suggested by me. But 1) "We have named" already much more than "1,6 million of species until now" (consider synonyms!); 2) many (perhaps most) of them are "meaningless" and so very difficult to memorize; 3) many (perhaps most) of them (even those already existing) are so similar as to become also hardly memorizable and distinguishable (Pleurocera vs. Pleuroceras - both in Mollusca; Apis vs. Aphis -both in Insecta; Hyperantha vs. Hiperantha - both in Coleoptera: Buprestidae; &c., &c., &c.); 4) already now plenty of homonyms are being produced because nobody is able to memorize the hitherto used names within his/her "own" Kingdom - if those identical between Kingdoms are also considered homonymous, the chaos further increases. As to me, I find te existence of Prunella or Morus both in botany and in zoology much less confusing than Deyrollius and Deyrollus simultaneously in zoology [to say nothing of Serica brunnea (Scarabaeidae) and Sericus brunneus (Elateridae) within a single Order (Coleoptera)]!
As to the "split first, think later...", this is a citation from HARVEY P. 2001. [Review]: SHIRIHAI & al.: Sylvia warblers. Identification, taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus Sylvia. Br. Birds 94, 6: 297.
I agree with Roman. Taxonomic inflation is indeed a problem. One should refrain from splitting genera because they aren't holophyletic. As for orthography, avoiding homonymy isn't enough, a difference of a single letter between two names isn't enough.
Botanical and zoological taxonomoy do not compete in synonymy. There are actually a lot of valid "homonymous" names of plant and animal genera. So the simple answer to your question is YES.
Yes you cause an existing botanical genus name for an animal and vice versa but why would you. Although not governed by the separate codes for botanical and zoological nomenclature it is, in my opinion, good practice to avoid creating new homonyms.
I agree with you, Mark Wilkinson, but in my case, I had wanted to create a new name for an animal genus that was already in use for a plant genus (indeed, Dimitris Kostopoulos, it was Duboisia), but alas, that is not needed.
To reiterate, just to add strength to the comments: Best practice is don't make new homonyms if you can help it.
The BioCode deals with this in section 18 here: http://www.bionomenclature.net/biocode2011.html
The International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB) is now working towards ensuring that the Codes don't diverge further in the future. A key component of this is getting nomenclatural tools and sources to speak to each other - to be interoperable. The way forward is to develop a global cross-Code digital nomenclature.
http://www.bionomenclature.net/biocode2011.html
There is a genus in plant, Sida (Family Malvaceae). This was created by Linnaeus in 1754. The genus contains nearly 100 valid species.
The same genus (Sida) is also found in Crustacea (Zoology). It was created by Straus in 1820. It contains two species.
Is it not a case of homonymy ? Does it require any replacement name ?
Additional examples:
- Dracaena - plant inside Asparagales, lizard inside Squamata
- Polyura - plant inside Rubiaceae, insect inside Lepidoptera
- Cyanea - plant inside Campanulaceae, medusa inside Scyphozoa
- Ponera - orchid in Orchidaceae, ant inside Formicidae
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology