Synonymy is by itself unlimited and unlimitable. Some of its causes may be minimized by suitable changes to the laws governing nomenclature, as has been explained before. However, the number of synonyms caused by ill use of the nomenclatural laws (including by those who were publishing long before such laws existed) -- while still excessive -- is relatively low. Most synonyms are due to varying concepts of taxonomic classification and taxon limits. To give but one example, the excessive splitting due to granting taxonomic recognition to individual clones has led to a list of 134 synonyms under the single species Pilosella officinarum in Med-Checklist, vol. 2 (2008). Taraxacum officinale is, in many Floras, still treated in an aggregate sense, to encompass the entire genus. So delimited, Taraxacum officinale would have several hundred names proposed for agamospecies listed in its synonymy.

A third category of "synonyms", not mentioned so far, but indeed quite troublesome, are spelling variants. Computers will ivariably treat variants as different names, and although in a technical sense they are not proper synonyms, only spelling errors (such as Monotropa "hypopithys", mentioned above, an error long corrected but that takes its roots from Linnaeus himself), in the computer age we must count them as if they were synonyms. Conclusion: take care to spell correctly the names you use, lest you be accused to uselessly clutter synonymy.

Speaking of computer age, the handling of large numbers of synonyms is now much less of a problem than it used to be. Computers can easily handle any number of synonyms. The problem is for the anyway too few taxonomists, who have to check, assess and typify each individual synonym, wasting valuable time on a cause of, eventually, little practical import.

Hello

there are two main reasons for synonymy of botanical names. The first is nomenclature, i.e. ignorance of previous works or non-respect of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. This is getting less common as the Internet eases access to relevant information. The second reason is taxonomy, i.e. species diversity and different taxonomical conceptions. This cannot be controlled.

Just take the case of Monotropa hypopithys L. There are more than 70 synonyms. So there is no limitation on the number of synonyms of a plant.

Common people will never bother about synonyms. They identify the plant species by their own names.

Authors should describe new taxa only after thorough taxonomic studies. These days literature, images of type & authentic specimens and advice from experts are easily available than in the past.

Molecular studies definitely help to ascertain if it is a new taxon but also responsible in creating hundreds of synonyms because many a species under certain genera are transferred to other genera but this is inevitable.

For nomenclatural stability some proposals are coming up. I have attached one such publication.

Sadly this problem kept resurfacing despite the effort being made to harmonize it. I suggest e-taxonomy with a centralized database.

The process of generating new synonyms will probably continue until the right person take right taxonomic decision about the plant species. However, certain actions could help minimise synonymy e.g. availability of the old literature and type specimens to taxonomists, full cooperation among herbaria and above all re-visiting all the previous descriptions before describing a new taxon etc.

I have never studied Biology as a subject during my student days. I am hence not qualified for making any comment on this.

Even then I do feel that there should be some universally agreed upon/accepted principles, based on which plant species should be named.

ICN is for that only

Synonymy is by itself unlimited and unlimitable. Some of its causes may be minimized by suitable changes to the laws governing nomenclature, as has been explained before. However, the number of synonyms caused by ill use of the nomenclatural laws (including by those who were publishing long before such laws existed) -- while still excessive -- is relatively low. Most synonyms are due to varying concepts of taxonomic classification and taxon limits. To give but one example, the excessive splitting due to granting taxonomic recognition to individual clones has led to a list of 134 synonyms under the single species Pilosella officinarum in Med-Checklist, vol. 2 (2008). Taraxacum officinale is, in many Floras, still treated in an aggregate sense, to encompass the entire genus. So delimited, Taraxacum officinale would have several hundred names proposed for agamospecies listed in its synonymy.

A third category of "synonyms", not mentioned so far, but indeed quite troublesome, are spelling variants. Computers will ivariably treat variants as different names, and although in a technical sense they are not proper synonyms, only spelling errors (such as Monotropa "hypopithys", mentioned above, an error long corrected but that takes its roots from Linnaeus himself), in the computer age we must count them as if they were synonyms. Conclusion: take care to spell correctly the names you use, lest you be accused to uselessly clutter synonymy.

Speaking of computer age, the handling of large numbers of synonyms is now much less of a problem than it used to be. Computers can easily handle any number of synonyms. The problem is for the anyway too few taxonomists, who have to check, assess and typify each individual synonym, wasting valuable time on a cause of, eventually, little practical import.

Synonyms are published names that an author or authors have used as if the correctly published valid name. However, either that author did not do sufficient homework to find the validly published and therefore correct name, in most cases the earliest published Latin name since Linneaus 1753, or a later author reevaluated the group and made changes that supersedes that earlier author's use. For example, changing a genus name or returning to an earlier genus name after investigation showed it shouldn't have been changed, and thus moving all species names under the other genus name under the new or older genus name. Some names that are not actually the earliest validly published name are officially conserved for reasons such as being more frequently used (ie: agricultural, ecological or medical publications), or being the type for a family from which a genus name is derived, and perhaps otherwise appearing to have been derived from a different family name that does not apply. There are also cases where common names have been used incorrectly as if they were validly published Latin names. Sometimes an author with the best intentions uses a name in a non-taxonomic publication (ie: nutrition, ecology, agronomy) and does not follow through to make it a validly published name under international rules. In some cases, plants are misidentified and then incorrectly thought to be new species, receiving new names that may even end up appearing to have been validly published, until the error is found and corrected. It is not possible to put a number on how many of these errors occur. They are not 'allowed'. They are unplanned. It is the job of any taxonomist to follow the international rules for nomenclature, but there can still be disagreements on what are the correct limits of a taxon. Many species, genera, families, etc. have 'fuzzy' edges, where different characters indicate groupings that seem to contradict each other. Taxonomy is an art as well as a science, in some cases even when looking directly at genes. Taxonomists need to be as thorough as possible, and it can be time consuming to do this. All closely related taxa should be examined before altering names or assigning new ones. A wider geographic area than that of immediate interest should also be examined for similar specimens. A variety of keys, type specimens and descriptions should be examined before attempting this and at more than one herbarium. It is important to check types and large numbers of other specimens sharing a name to see how much variation falls within the group, before deciding that the specimen of interest is truly different enough to receive a new name. This requires sufficient familiarity with a group to find mislabeled specimens. There is also the question of suspected hybrid specimens, that may fall fairly evenly between two closely related but separate taxonomic groups. If a hybrid was assigned it's own name, that decision may be reversed later. Hope this helps.

Dear Dr. Greuter,

I gave the number of synonyms from:

Wallace, G.D. (1975). Studies of the Monotropoideae (Ericaceae): Taxonomy and distribution. Wasmann J. Biol. 33(1&2): 1-87.

In this paper the spelling was "hypopithys". I was confused regarding the spelling of the specific epithet because in IPNI, I found the following:

Monotropa hypopithys L. -- : use M. hypopitys L.

I looked up in the Species Plantarum where the spelling was "hypopithys".

From your statement it seems to me that " hypopitys" is correct.

Can you tell me why " hypopitys" is correct and not "hypopithys".

With regards,

Subir.

Hello Subir,

Linnaeus's original mistake is due to the fact that, as is generally recognized, he was not excellent as a scholar in classical languages. The epithet hypopitys, meaning underneath pines, was misspelled by Linnaeus because he believed the Greek name for pine to be pithys, whereas in fact it is pitys, written with the letter tau (τ), not theta (θ).

The epithet was used as a generic name in pre-Linnaean times, Hypopitys (sometimes misspelled Hypopytis), that Linnaeus in his references similarly mis-quotes as Hypopithys. I did not find who was the author who first corrected the Linnaean spelling. Anyway, to quote the Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project, "The epithet was originally spelled "hypopithys" but this has generally been treated as correctable to "hypopitys"."

There is no limit for number of synonyms. Synonymy results in naming the same taxon by different names without knowing the existence of a name for it. Secondly, taxonomic studies, delimiting the cisrcumscription of the taxon, may result in synonymy.

I think there is no limitation! whenever two species (or more than two) (morphologically or phylogenetically) have enough and considerable similarities, they must be treated as synonyms.

Thank you Dr Greuter.

Due to less concern on herbarium various workers creates new species day to day. But recently The Plant List, Tropicos and Plants On Line World resolve such type of problems. As per Indian Taxonomist we follow natual system of classification by Benth. & Hook. Classification which is easy for plant identification.

I doubt whether the Plant List, Tropicos etc. do not make taxonomic judgments and if no recent revisions are available they simply state umresolved (or so).

Plant List and Tropicos are not absolutely dependably in finding out the currently accepted names. So far as I know Plant List has stopped updating the accepted names from last two years.

Respected Subir Bandyopadhyay sir, recently plant list stop working, but plant on line world continue today. This site resolve many unresolved name. Also ipni also resolving such problem. But many time plant list correct and rest of sites confusing. So we concern every sites and literatures for correct name of plant.

Bhaskar: You are correct. Take help of all the online databases (including world checklists) and recent publications too to ascertain the current accepted name. However, if you are to check extensive list of names it would be very difficult to find and go through all the relevant publications.

The name of plant is a compétence of expert-taxonomists.

But correct name of plant - this is not only one personnel competence6 but a collective work.

The synonymy - not importance of number - is a source for ipni or other site.

Adina cordifolia has a basionym Nauclea cordifolia Roxb.

Plant list change as synonyms of Haldina cordifolia till few months, but plant on line world shift as synonym of Adina cordifolia as correct accepted name.

Confusing?

Now what is accepted name either Haldina or Adina?

You can rely on http://wcsp.science.kew.org/qsearch.do

Adina cordifolia (Roxb.) Brandis, Forest Fl. N.W. India: 263 (1874): Accepted name

Haldina cordifolia (Roxb.) Ridsdale, Blumea 24: 361 (1978): Synonym

Plant List gives just the reverse

http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-95965

You can contact with Dr. Mohan Gangopadhyay

Dr. Mohan Gangopadhyay BSI

who works on Indian Rubiaceae. Contact him in both the mail ids, one of these works.

However, accepted names might vary depending on the taxonomic concept of a worker.

Taxonomic concept of a worker or circumscription of the generic delimitation concept adopted by a worker

We should understand that nomenclature and taxonomy are two different kinds. 'A name should be unique, and legitimate' that's how we have learned over the time, ICN has been established to maintain this uniqueness and stability, still evolving or improving year by years. But there is no any such rules or recommendations or control to describe a new taxa, this occasion I remember lines from "The Blind Men and the Elephant: though each was partly in the right and all were in the wrong".

Each of the synonymised species were unique and distinct when it was described (auct. author of the species), afterwards due to some circumstances (like priority, illegitimacy, conspecific nature or the ways mentioned by Dr. Werner Greuter) put down to the synonym, however the records of it will be always attached with the taxa. Therefore, the eradication or control of syonyms is not possible, we can't erase the past!

Shibabrata Pattanayak ji, use of genetic, cytological, anotomical characters is an additional aid, not only to confirm its taxonomic identity but also to get a possible evolving span, and distributional or travelling information, not a hinder to the classical taxonomy which is always relevant in the field and laboratory for immediate identification of the plants!, which we should always appreciate.

Thanks!

Unfertunately No!!! Really it is a problem that there is not limitation about numer of synonimes. I hope it will be disscused in the future ICBN conference.

no it will never Synonymy is by itself unlimited it can be many with no limits...

NO and NO! Really it is a problem especially for "an unique species database in the world" but, as the "biodiversity is life" and

the "uniformity is death" it is a good thing to have so many "synonyms".

agree with Belul Gixhari Sir