# Use Of Specific Epithets



## Mahon (Nov 23, 2006)

I discussed this topic with Guido Braem before writing on here. Personally, I think this subject is a very important one, and should be fixed to correct errors and confusion between taxa. Here is the problem, and I offer a possible treatment. 

The incessant use of repetitous specific epithets is an issue that needs to be addressed. When searching for a certain taxon, there are usually synonymous epithets. Sometimes, along with synonymy, we will find another genus that is closely related, and see that the same specific epithet is used (regardless of gender). I will further address and clarify the problem with examples. 

When searching for _Masdevallia dodsonii_ Luer (1976), we find that it has been reduced to synonymy in the generic level. We then look for the segregate genera of _Masdevallia_, we find two genera with the specific epithet of _dodsonii_; _Dracula_ and _Dryadella_. Without any knowledge of any of these taxa, which do we choose as the correct accepted epithet? Both genera have been segregated from _Masdevallia_, and both have the specific epithet of _dodsonii_. Is it right to assume that all three treatments are the same taxon? No conclusions can really be drawn without studying the type specimen and information for each of these taxa (or is it really taxon?). In fact, _Masdevallia dodsonii_ Luer (1976) has been reduced to synonomy by the author of the species. The correctly accepted nomenclatural name is _Dracula dodsonii_ (Luer) Luer (1978). As for _Dryadella dodsonii_ Luer (1999), it is a seperate and distinct species. 

By this example, it is easy to see that taxa (or maybe taxon?) can be confused with each other when closely related. This is just a single example, there are many. 

I offer a solution, which must be done in steps. First, I believe that a guideline should be made in order to clarify the use of specific epithets. We already know that a specific epithet cannot be repeated in a single genus, but an addition to this guideline should be added. It should state that 'a specific epithet cannot be repeated in genera that have shared synonymy'. 

This means, in the example above, that the specific epithet for _Dryadella dodsonii_ Luer (1999) would (and should) be changed in accordance with the new guideline to keep order within classification. This would also simplify searching for a certain taxon, without questioning other similar genera with the same epithets. 

I would like to hear all input on this idea and these problems. If it is needed, I will post another example of confusing specific epithets.

-P.A. Mahon


----------



## Braem (Nov 24, 2006)

I will go into this problem later, but a short comment to begin with: the first thing you have to do is get copies of ALL publications involved. I mean the original publications, not secondary ones.

Guido


----------



## NYEric (Nov 24, 2006)

I would not think that Masdevallia, Dracula, and Dryadella would be the same.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 24, 2006)

NYEric said:


> I would not think that Masdevallia, Dracula, and Dryadella would be the same.



They are not the same, that is why I brought this up. There is much confusion between the specific epithets of closely related genera that have the same specific epithet. _Dracula_ and _Dryadella_ are two segregate genera of _Masdevallia_, made in the same year (1978), same publication (_Selbyana_ 2), same author (Dr. Luer). It is confusing because we don't know what is synonymy or not, without looking at the publication (and type), and researching. Here is something to maybe simplify what I am getting at;

Some _Masdevallia_ -> _Dryadella_
Some _Masdevallia_ -> _Dracula_
________________________________

_Masdevallia dodsonii_ -> ???
_Masdevallia dodsonii_ -> _Dracula_?
_Masdevallia dodsonii_ -> _Dryadella_?
________________________________

The result:
_Masdevallia dodsonii_ = _Dracula dodsonii_
_Masdevallia dodsonii_ ≠ _Dryadella dodsonii_


-P.A. Mahon


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Nov 24, 2006)

Sounds similar to the confusion we had a while back about whether Cypripedium micranthum and Paphiopedilum micranthum were the same thing.

So was Masdevallia dodsonii morphologically what we now commonly agree are Draculas? I agree, giving plant genera the same species names when they were once the same genera is completely confusing. This is my main gripe with the grouping genera like Laelinae instead of Laelia/Cattleya/Sophronitis as there is typically more than one with the same species name.

Jon


----------



## Braem (Nov 24, 2006)

OK, Mahon et alia [this is not an insult - I am going to put that in everywhere because I am getting fed up with being accused of insulting people all the time] , you have just about said everything that needs to be said. Just let me complete it and review it in my own words:

You have 3 taxa. All at the species level. For the sake of this discussion we will assume that they have all been validly and effectively published. (For that you need to have the publications and have the Code). And that is why I keep telling people to go back to the "original publications".

Now lets start of with _Masdevallia dodsonii _Luer. 

Luer segregates a group of _Masdevallia_ as a separate genus _(Dracula)._ His _Masdevallia dodsonii _is one species of that group. Thus, he makes a new combination. His _Masdevallia dodsonii _Luer does now become _Dracula dodsonii_ (Luer) Luer, and _Masdevallia dodsonii_ Luer is what we botanists call "the basionym". That is easy to understand: "basi" or "bas" referring to the basis, and the rest of the word "ionym" or "onym" pointing at the word "synonym". Thus very simple: a basionym is a synonym but at the same time the name under which the species was originally described. The author of the basionym is put in brackets, and that is why we refer to that author as the "bracket author". In our case, the bracket author and the author of the new combination are the same. But that is pure chance. 
It is a good idea to include that bracket author as it gives lost of information:

1) It shows that there is another name for the species, and
2) it tells you who described the species originally

Thus as Mahon clearly said, _Masdevallia dodsonii_ = _Dracula dodsonii_

What we have left is _Dryadella dodsonii _Luer.
Now _Dryadella_ is also a segregate from _Masdevallia. _ Now, _*theoretically*_ Luer _*could*_ have made a mistake and have transferred his _Masdevallia dodsonii_ to _Dryadella_ and also to _Dracula_ (although this kind of error is very rare, it has happened before: for example Lindley has described a species as a _Laelia_ and one page later described the same species as a _Cattleya) _and then it would be a question of deciding whether _"Masdevallia dodsonii" _belongs into _Dracula_ or _Dryadella. _

However, I assume (I did not check) that _Dryadella dodsonii_ is a different species altogether (as indicated by Mahon)

Thus we have 3 (three) taxa and those represent 2 (two) species. 

I know that some of you object to the same specific epithet in genera of the same "group". However, in case of a recombination (as in _Dracula dodsonii) _the rules say that you have to retain the specific epithet (there are some exceptions, but lets not confuse the issue for now), and secondly you can (theoretically) have a species with the same specific epithet in each and every plant genus you want. 

Guido




Mahon said:


> They are not the same, that is why I brought this up. There is much confusion between the specific epithets of closely related genera that have the same specific epithet. _Dracula_ and _Dryadella_ are two segregate genera of _Masdevallia_, made in the same year (1978), same publication (_Selbyana_ 2), same author (Dr. Luer). It is confusing because we don't know what is synonymy or not, without looking at the publication (and type), and researching. Here is something to maybe simplify what I am getting at;
> 
> Some _Masdevallia_ -> _Dryadella_
> Some _Masdevallia_ -> _Dracula_
> ...


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Nov 24, 2006)

Gotcha, I think I understand now.

So there currently is:

Dryadella dodsonii
http://www.orchidspecies.com/drydodsoni.htm

Dracula dodsonii
http://www.draculaspecies.com/dracula-dodsonii

and Masdevallia dodsonii which is a basionym for the Dracula dodsonii, and not a currently existing species of what are now commonly accepted as Masdevallias.

This can be confusing, and I appreciate it when authors like Guido include this in their published works, as I like to be able to easily find out what the basionyms and synonyms for a plant are so I don't think there is another species out there.

Jon


----------



## Mahon (Nov 24, 2006)

Jon in SW Ohio said:


> Sounds similar to the confusion we had a while back about whether Cypripedium micranthum and Paphiopedilum were the same thing.
> 
> So was Masdevallia dodsonii morphologically what we now commonly agree are Draculas? I agree, giving plant genera the same species names when they were once the same genera is completely confusing. This is my main gripe with the grouping genera like Laelinae instead of Laelia/Cattleya/Sophronitis as there is typically more than one with the same species name.
> 
> Jon



Jon,

This is exactly like the Cypripedium micranthum and Paphiopedilum micranthum confusion!  Also, same with Cypripedium malipoense and Paphiopedilum malipoense (since there was once talk about P. malipoense being akin to Cypripedium)... since

As for using the subtribal level in replacement of a generic epithet, I don't think that will solve any problems. In fact, I would think it would make more problems. How could we go about changing the Pleurothallids into 'Pleurothallidiinae' for the genus? There are just too many plants, and saying "I have a Pleurothallid", we are dealing with a few thousand (or more) species...

Perhaps annother alternative solution (which goes along with your suggestion) is add a nomenclatural level between Subtribe and Genus. It would be a 'group' that groups together genera that are morphologically similar and share more defining traits (such as Chromosome count, or general relation)... I think DNA would be the determining factor in this 'group'. Any ideas on this suggestion? Going in between the problems...  

-PM


----------



## Mahon (Nov 24, 2006)

Guido has it correct!  (I didn't see the post until I replied to Jon)

This is what is "stupid"... we can technically have the same specific epithet for every genus, but we need to somehow limit it to a specific group. Perhaps adding a group in between Subtribe and Genus will solve the problem? Then we define the regulations for that 'group'?

Thanks Guido for your input! 

-PM


----------



## bench72 (Nov 24, 2006)

*funny...*



Mahon said:


> Perhaps annother alternative solution ..... is add a nomenclatural level between Subtribe and Genus. It would be a 'group' that groups together genera that are morphologically similar and share more defining traits (such as Chromosome count, or general relation)... .... Any ideas on this suggestion? Going in between the problems...



sounds like the notion of a "Super Genus" previously discussed... hmm...


----------



## Marco (Nov 24, 2006)

That's because some kids just don't get enough attention at home.


----------



## Mahon (Nov 25, 2006)

bench72 said:


> sounds like the notion of a "Super Genus" previously discussed... hmm...



Incorporating a "super genus" (which is using the subtribal level in place of the generic level) would just cause confusion between related and distinct taxa. Think; we need to first address the problem of repeat specific epithets first. If we were to switch the subtribe into generic status, then (using the Pleurothallids as an example), we will have ten distinct taxa with the specific epithet of _dodsonii_, with three basionyms, all from the same author. What can we do now?

I think incorporating new guidelines for the repetition of specific epithets will be the best problem solver. Perhaps we can go as dramatic as limiting to the subtribal level, or with some sort of basis, group related genera together and prevent repeat specific epithets within that group.

What do you think? 

-PM


----------



## Mahon (Nov 25, 2006)

Marco said:


> That's because some kids just don't get enough attention at home.



Lost... please explain? 

-PM


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

Pat et alia,

If we were to throw the groups together again, as has been suggested, then we would have a problem. Lets say (just for discussion) that we simply put all the slippers back together again. We would (logically) use the oldest genus: _Cypripedium_ Linné 1753.

_Cypripedium malipoense _Chen & Liu is retained, and _Paphiopedilum malipoense _Chen & Tsi must be transferred to _Cypripedium_ and as the specific epithet _"malipoense"_ is blocked in _Cypripedium _(by _Cypripedium malipoense Chen & Liu),_ what has been _Paphiopedilum _must re renamed. That is, for example an instance where new names *must be *given.

However, the situation would be different if we had a new _Cypripedium venustum _Garfield 1942 (this is just as an example). We would have _Paphiopedilum venustum_ (Wallich ex Sims) Pfitzer and the said _Cypripedium venustum._
Now everything goes back into _Cypripedium_ and we have _Cypripedium venustum _Wallich ex Sims described in 1820 and _Cypripedium venustum _Garfield described in 1942. In this case, the _*latter *__*must be*_ renamed.

As for using the subtribal level to replace a generic epithet, as Pat says, that is not acceptable. By definition _"Pleurothallidinae"_ is a given taxonomic level and cannot be "misused". I am also against adding a new (additional) level in the hierarchy. In my opinion, such additional level would make maters even more confusing to all those not familiar with taxonomy.

Guido




Mahon said:


> Jon,
> 
> This is exactly like the Cypripedium micranthum and Paphiopedilum micranthum confusion!  Also, same with Cypripedium malipoense and Paphiopedilum malipoense (since there was once talk about P. malipoense being akin to Cypripedium)... since
> 
> ...


----------



## bench72 (Nov 25, 2006)

Mahon said:


> If we were to switch the subtribe into generic status, then ....., we will have ten distinct taxa with the specific epithet of _dodsonii_, with three basionyms, all from the same author. What can we do now?
> 
> What do you think?



Gosh, I can't believe you’re even interested in what I think... oh well… “bites, yet again”...  

First of all, before we fix the problem, maybe the taxonomists should stop splitting current genera and exacerbating the problem until a better naming system is in place. After all, every time a Genus is split, there becomes another basionym…. 

By the way, why is one process of increasing basionym preferable to another? 



mahon said:


> we can go as dramatic as limiting to the subtribal level



Sure, put a limit on specific epithet… actually, why stop at ‘subtribe’, go all the way… limit it at the ‘family’ level… so that when all orchids are named after a combination of ‘family’ + ‘specific epithet’ eg Orchidaceae purpurata, we've slowed / stopped the increase in similar 'specific epithet' .


Now, I see my fault when I throw names in the taxonomic basket willy nilly! I confuse the disparity in the levels, I mean after all Laeliinae is a 'subtribe' and I was using it as a 'genus', again Orchidaceae is a ‘family’ but I was using it as a ‘genus’. Silly Billy, should have played within the naming convention, or is that the Code? 

hmm…. ‘genus’ + ‘specific epithet’ = species name

pffttt… get rid of ‘genus’ and use ‘family’ instead! This way, the taxonomists can keep changing the genus that a species is in and the name of the orchid would still be the same!

“ooooh”, I’m turning the whole naming convention upside down… Telling ‘genus’ that his job as part of a species name is being given to that lovely lady ‘family’!

I’ve said it before, and will keep saying it….What is of interest is that the name of an orchid is stable! Not Laelia purpurata today, not Sophronitis purpurata tomorrow, not a segregated 'new' genus next week! 

So!

Make *one final big change*! Change it to Orchidaceae purpurata! Tomorrow, when the relationships between the plants are better understood through molecular technology, then re-allign their relationship by showing they are now in a different ‘tribe’, ‘subtribe’, ‘genus’, whatever… but no matter what the relationship, the name remains *STABLE*!


well, that's all folks.... "goes to get another beer"


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

bench72 said:


> Gosh, I can't believe you’re even interested in what I think... oh well… “bites, yet again”...
> 
> First of all, before we fix the problem, maybe the taxonomists should stop splitting current genera and exacerbating the problem until a better naming system is in place. After all, every time a Genus is split, there becomes another basionym….



Ok, so you want to put Dracula, Dryadella back into Masdevallia?
OK, so you want Cattleya, Laelia, Laeliopsis, Broughtonia, Cattleyopsis, Brassavola, Encyclia, etc back in Epidendrum?
OK, so you want to put Mexicoa, Brassia, Tolumnia, Psychopis back into Oncidium?

I am afraid that I don't see why this could possibly clarify things?



bench72 said:


> By the way, why is one process of increasing basionym preferable to another?



There is no "increasing basionym" please explain what you mean. 



bench72 said:


> Sure, put a limit on specific epithet… actually, why stop at ‘subtribe’, go all the way… limit it at the ‘family’ level… so that when all orchids are named after a combination of ‘family’ + ‘specific epithet’ eg Orchidaceae purpurata, we've slowed / stopped the increase in similar 'specific epithet' .
> 
> Now, I see my fault when I throw names in the taxonomic basket willy nilly! I confuse the disparity in the levels, I mean after all Laeliinae is a 'subtribe' and I was using it as a 'genus', again Orchidaceae is a ‘family’ but I was using it as a ‘genus’. Silly Billy, should have played within the naming convention, or is that the Code? .



part of it.



bench72 said:


> hmm…. ‘genus’ + ‘specific epithet’ = species name
> 
> pffttt… get rid of ‘genus’ and use ‘family’ instead! This way, the taxonomists can keep changing the genus that a species is in and the name of the orchid would still be the same!.



OK ... so we delete all the street names. Now you have NewYork 2765, New York 3777, Chicago 2666. Or maybe we should do away with the city names as well, USA 56677, Europe 17835 ... Great system, makes it much clearer.



bench72 said:


> “ooooh”, I’m turning the whole naming convention upside down… Telling ‘genus’ that his job as part of a species name is being given to that lovely lady ‘family’!.
> 
> I’ve said it before, and will keep saying it….What is of interest is that the name of an orchid is stable! Not Laelia purpurata today, not Sophronitis purpurata tomorrow, not a segregated 'new' genus next week! .



But that is a problem at the species and generic level. That has nothing to do with hierachy. 
If you have "New York 77567" who tells you that there is not someone going to come and change the numbers around.?



bench72 said:


> So!
> 
> Make *one final big change*! Change it to Orchidaceae purpurata! .



Nope, and it has been said many times before that you can't use a family as a genus



bench72 said:


> Tomorrow, when the relationships between the plants are better understood through molecular technology, then re-allign their relationship by showing they are now in a different ‘tribe’, ‘subtribe’, ‘genus’, whatever… but no matter what the relationship, the name remains *STABLE*!.



Sorry but that makes me grin. I hope you know that what you say would mean that all of us would have a molecular lab at home. And who tells you that the molecular techniques don't evolve. In fact they already have.



bench72 said:


> well, that's all folks.... "goes to get another beer"



which one? Or is there only one kind? .... Just think about beer and you will understand how taxonomy works and why it is needed (also applies to wine by the way)

Guido


----------



## Tony (Nov 25, 2006)

Braem said:


> which one? Or is there only one kind? .... Just think about beer and you will understand how taxonomy works and why it is needed (also applies to wine by the way)



If a beer taxonomist went into my fridge and changed my Sam Adams Octoberfest into Miller High Life I'd be pretty unhappy...


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

Tony said:


> If a beer taxonomist went into my fridge and changed my Sam Adams Octoberfest into Miller High Life I'd be pretty unhappy...



Do they really write "Octoberfest" with a "c"? (and is it dark or blonde?) [Important taxonomic question for beer taxonomists]

Guido


----------



## Tony (Nov 25, 2006)

Yes, it is spelled with a "c", and it is dark.


----------



## Braem (Nov 25, 2006)

Ok ... Interesting that they would name a beer for the "Oktoberfest" and then make the error of writing it with a "c".
And the dark beers are real good.

Guido


----------



## bench72 (Nov 25, 2006)

Braem said:


> Ok, so you want to put Dracula, Dryadella back into Masdevallia?
> 
> I am afraid that I don't see why this could possibly clarify things?



I think, we're looking at different results. You want to clarify things eg. relationships between plants, and I just want to ensure that the species name remain stable. If it means lumping them back into Masdevallia, then so be it.

Maybe changing the concept of how a species name is given from "genus + specific epithet" to "family + specific epithet" or any combination that may work better is untenable considering the history and the amount of work, but it will keep a lot of taxonomists off the streets for a while. oke:



braem said:


> There is no "increasing basionym" please explain what you mean.



basionym = basic synonym.... Yes?

so, if 

Laelia purpurata is now called Sophronitis purpurata, then sophronitis purpurata has one basionym, namely laelia purpurata…. Yes?

If tomorrow, it is called Cattleya purpurata, then it will have as its basionym laelia purpurata and sophronitis purpurata, which makes two basionyms. Yes/No?

Maybe it isn't 'basionym' which I am thinking of but some other taxonomic concept, either way, it goes back to an ever increasing prior name for the one species.



braem said:


> OK ... so we delete all the street names. Now you have NewYork 2765, New York 3777, Chicago 2666. Or maybe we should do away with the city names as well, USA 56677, Europe 17835 ... Great system, makes it much clearer.



ok, street names = specific epithet, and we haven't quite done away with it. 

So, let's say all street names from now on will be numbers and every new street will have the a new number.

Braem street is now 7. And it is in the USA. so, if I say USA 7, people will know that I am talking of (or what once was) Braem Street, USA. In the future, it will be simply known as USA 7. 

Of course, the census may want to have different levels which designate, suburb, city, state. Changing population means that a suburb is burgeoning and needs to be split. Currently, the suburb of Braem where USA 7 (aka Braem St is) is getting too big and needs to be split. So, they split the suburb into Guido and Braem and now USA 7 is in Guido. At the end of the day, it is still known as USA 7.



braem said:


> If you have "New York 77567" who tells you that there is not someone going to come and change the numbers around.?



and here I concede, because if it would be as easy to change the system as I have suggested, then it would be just as easy for someone else to change it tomorrow.



braem said:


> Nope, and it has been said many times before that you can't use a family as a genus



But why not? Is it because I am changing the whole concept of what a 'family' vs a 'genus' signifies? Isn't this the idea... the current concepts cannot cope with the changes that are being made so it’s time to turn them upside down, inside out.



braem said:


> I hope you know that what you say would mean that all of us would have a molecular lab at home. And who tells you that the molecular techniques don't evolve.



You misunderstood the my point. The point was that as more research is done (however this is done, whether subatomic technology or whatever) the relationships of plants will be better understood. This relationship may lead to a plant being moved from one genus to another, but it’s name should remain the same.



braem said:


> which one? Or is there only one kind? .... Just think about beer and you will understand how taxonomy works and why it is needed (also applies to wine by the way)



this is a terrible analogy, if I may say so myself, so I’ll respond with an equally terrible one…

If I buy a Foster’s Lager today, and tomorrow I go to pub # 2 at USA 7, I can still ask for a Foster’s Lager. The beer hasn’t changed it’s name.


----------



## Braem (Nov 26, 2006)

Yes, but you see. The _Foster's Lager_ is a species. And the species is _*well defined and has no variation. *_Therefore, there is no trouble finding it in any shop or anytime.

But true (taxonomist) life is not that way, a awful lot of plant species are NOT well-defined and MOST are variable, some even, very much so (just remember the _besseae/dalessandroi _deal). 

Now, if we would have a system to define the species as well as the _Foster's Lager_ or _Sam Adams Octoberfest _(I get a shock everytime I write Octoberfest wit a "c"), we would have solved a very, very big problem.

Moral of the story: beer taxonomy is easy, and hey, I am going to use that in class. The other good way to explain taxonomy is languages (but unfortunately, not too many people speak several languages). I think the beer deal is easier.

Guido
On second thought, I can think of a way in which I can include variation into my beer model. ... Got it!


----------



## Mahon (Nov 26, 2006)

bench72 said:


> I think, we're looking at different results. You want to clarify things eg. relationships between plants, and I just want to ensure that the species name remain stable. If it means lumping them back into Masdevallia, then so be it.



I think the major part of classification is determining relationships between genera and the status of each species in a genus. There are so many ways of attacking this, that we have our own little classification system on the taxonomists! 

What I see here is that you have no evidence to support your idea for your "supergenus" concept. You have an affinity towards lumping, yet without any evidence. You suggest moving all the segregate Masdevallia genera back into Masdevallia. This is crazy! If you see all the Masdevallia segregate genera in person, you would have a completely different story. Not only is there valid evidence that these genera remain segregated, but all of the conflicting specific epithets between these genera will cause even more confusion. This is why I originally stated the first step is to limit specific epithets. The "supergenus" concept is insane in itself, but you have to take steps that would even allow such a treatment. The first is fixing repetitous specific epithets, then setting a guideline to limit the epithet use in a certain nomenclatural level. 




bench72 said:


> Maybe changing the concept of how a species name is given from "genus + specific epithet" to "family + specific epithet" or any combination that may work better is untenable considering the history and the amount of work, but it will keep a lot of taxonomists off the streets for a while. oke:



Why change a good working concept? A binomial (genus + species) is a very good concept. You will not clarify anything if you specify what family you are discussing in the binomial. In that case, your binomial generic epithet (Orchidaceae) and specific epithet will have to treat about 20,000+ species. That means 20,000+ more original specific epithets would have to be given. *You just complicated the entire family Orchidaceae, and defeated your entire purpose (which is to "keep the species name stable") by using Orchidaceae in place of the generic epithet in a binomial.* 

Now, according to your system, not only do we have orchids, but we have orchids. What kind of orchids do you grow? I grow orchid orchids. It's repititous, we know we have orchids, that's why we have binomials with generic and specific epithets. That's why the beginning starts with broad Orchidaceae, and narrows down to a specific species, and does not go back up to Orchidaceae for any reason. 




bench72 said:


> basionym = basic synonym.... Yes?
> 
> so, if
> 
> ...



I am pretty sure you are relating to here is; 'Nomenclatural Synonyms'.





bench72 said:


> Braem street is now 7. And it is in the USA. so, if I say USA 7, people will know that I am talking of (or what once was) Braem Street, USA. In the future, it will be simply known as USA 7.
> 
> 
> bench72 said:
> ...


----------



## Braem (Nov 26, 2006)

bench72 said:


> IMaybe changing the concept of how a species name is given from "genus + specific epithet" to "family + specific epithet" or any combination that may work better is untenable considering the history and the amount of work, but it will keep a lot of taxonomists off the streets for a while. oke:



I am afraid you just don't get the point on this. What you propose will just shove (sp?) the problem into another level. The problem will remain the same. 



> basionym = basic synonym.... Yes?
> 
> so, if
> 
> Laelia purpurata is now called Sophronitis purpurata, then sophronitis purpurata has one basionym, namely laelia purpurata…. Yes?



YES ... You got it. 



> If tomorrow, it is called Cattleya purpurata, then it will have as its basionym laelia purpurata and sophronitis purpurata, which makes two basionyms. Yes/No?



NO. There is only ONE basionym, and that is the first name given to the species (in the original publication). That was _"Laelia purpurata"._ Therefore if it would become _Cattleya purpurata,_ the basionym will be _Laelia purpurata_ and "_Sophronitis purpurata"_ is reduced to y simple synonym.

Its actualy very simple. A taxon can only have one type and one basionym, but many synonyms.



> Maybe it isn't 'basionym' which I am thinking of but some other taxonomic concept, either way, it goes back to an ever increasing prior name for the one species.



What is an "ever increasing prior name"? Or do you want to say the prior names in chronological sequence. In that casr YES. The first name turns into the basionym, all others become synonyms



> But why not? Is it because I am changing the whole concept of what a 'family' vs a 'genus' signifies? Isn't this the idea... the current concepts cannot cope with the changes that are being made so it’s time to turn them upside down, inside out.



The current system works. But there is no point in knowing an address if you have not learned how to find that address. Thus, the current system itself is good enough as far as the "Taxonomy" is concerned. However, what is at fault is the "systematics". We have to define the species properly. We have to find a way to say what is "variation enough to divide the species" etc. etc. 

Again, It is not a problem to find _Sam Adams_ if you know what _Sam Adams_ is, what a refrigerator is, in what refrigerator you have put the "juice," what house the fridge is in, what city the house is in, etc. etc. that is pure taxonomy and systematics. 

So now back to orchids.
Fat Guido (alias Braem) defines _Ledebergia nonexistentia, _and published it validly and effectively as of 17 Aprilium 2754. As it is the first species of the genus, we have also defined the genus _Ledebergia._ Now, we decide that it is a slipper (no need for DNA) eyes will do. The plant comes from outer Mongolia and grew on trees, so we have a _Paphiopedilum._ 

This we have a full proof taxonomy and systematics:

Family Orchidaceae
Subfamily Cypripedioidea
Genus _Ledebergia_
Species_ nonexistentia_

to be cited as _Ledebergia nonexistentia_ Braem 2754, and that is a full-proof designation of the plant. What is wrong with that system?

Now we can start playing around under what conditions and how that name can be changed, but one thing at the time.

Some strange noice is calling me to the kitchen.

Guido


----------



## Heather (Nov 26, 2006)

I just have to say (cause I know about these things at least oke: )
that Octoberfest is as such here because that's how we spell it in the USA. and Sammy's an American beer. 

I think most of the German beers spell it with the 'k'. 

I like that analogy. Off to get another Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale.....


----------



## Braem (Nov 26, 2006)

That is OK with me, it just struck me that if they are keeping the second part of the word "fest" in German, there is no reason not to do the same thing to the first part of the word. 

Guido 





Heather said:


> I just have to say (cause I know about these things at least oke: )
> that Octoberfest is as such here because that's how we spell it in the USA. and Sammy's an American beer.
> 
> I think most of the German beers spell it with the 'k'.
> ...


----------

