Dear Sony,

See the example under Art.  53.1 A name of a family, genus, or species, unless conserved (Art. 14) or sanctioned (Art. 15), is illegitimate if it is a later homonym, that is, if it is spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that was previously and validly published for a taxon of the same rank (see also Art. 53.2 and 53.4). of ICN.

o Ex.4. Molina racemosa Ruiz & Pav. (1798) (Compositae) is an illegitimate later homonym of Molina racemosa Cav. (1790) (Malpighiaceae).

Thus two entirely different plants may have the same name. So in these cases the name of the authors helps to differentiate the two species.

In my opinion in scientific write-ups you should give the complete name i.e. not only the binomials but the name of the author(s) too.

With best wishes,

Subir.

Yes you can mention but it would more appropriate to give the name of nomenclature authority. For example Sedum caespitosum (Cav.) DC.

This depends on where you are going to incorporate the scientific name. For example in some joournals ask you not put the name with nomenclature authority, others will say that only the first time you mention you place it completely. But the correct spelling is including nomenclature authorities. 

Regards

Cristian

If you want to avoid to give the name of of nomenclature authority you may cite in your text or paper the flora or internet resource you use to cite/give the scientific names. You should also cite this flora or internet resource in your bibliography. Then all scientific names should be given according to this flora and people may find the other details there.

Kind regards

Julian

Dear Sony,

See the example under Art.  53.1 A name of a family, genus, or species, unless conserved (Art. 14) or sanctioned (Art. 15), is illegitimate if it is a later homonym, that is, if it is spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that was previously and validly published for a taxon of the same rank (see also Art. 53.2 and 53.4). of ICN.

o Ex.4. Molina racemosa Ruiz & Pav. (1798) (Compositae) is an illegitimate later homonym of Molina racemosa Cav. (1790) (Malpighiaceae).

Thus two entirely different plants may have the same name. So in these cases the name of the authors helps to differentiate the two species.

In my opinion in scientific write-ups you should give the complete name i.e. not only the binomials but the name of the author(s) too.

With best wishes,

Subir.

‘’Sedum caespitosum’’ is the scientific name while ‘’(Cav.) DC.’’ are the nomenclatural authorities. When mentioning a scientific name of a plant for the first time in a write-up it should be written with the nomenclatural authority but can later be written without it.

All the best,

Chinelo.

Dear Sony,

Not only homonyms there may be isonyms too.

Isonym. The same name based on the same type, published independently at different times perhaps by different authors. Note: only the earliest isonym has nomenclatural status (Art. 6 Note 2; but see Art. 14.15).

o Ex.1. Baker (Summary New Ferns: 9. 1892) and Christensen (Index Filic.: 44. 1905) independently published the name Alsophila kalbreyeri as a replacement for A. podophylla Baker (1881) non Hook. (1857). As published by Christensen, A. kalbreyeri is a later isonym of A. kalbreyeri Baker without nomenclatural status (see also Art. 41 Ex. 19).

Thus citation of  author name(s) is essential.