Check for synonyms when creating species?

[MatsP]

This is a question for the taxonomy experts here: Is it ever valid for a synonym to be the same as another valid species?

I'm looking to enhance the "add new species", so that it's not possible to make the mistake of adding a new species that is already under a different name in the Cat-eLog.

--
Mats

[Jools]

AFAIK, not within the same kingdom. So, for our purposes, it's a sensible check.

Jools

[Shane]

Is it ever valid for a synonym to be the same as another valid species?

Yes, but I am running late. If HH does not chime in I'll explain later. Several Mystus spp have this. btw.
-Shane

[Jools]

Glad you didn't take my advice then! Let's look at the examples from Shane or HH.

Jools

[MatsP]

OK, so I expect this is still quite rare, so we could have a warning that says "There is already a synonym of this name on <current valid species name>, are you sure you want to add this? [YES][NO]" type thingy...

--
Mats

[Jools]

Yes. Although that opens up a can of worms around utilising the forum code that gives you Yes/No buttons or you could just hack something.

I would still be interested in the specifics.

Jools

[MatsP]

Yes. Although that opens up a can of worms around utilising the forum code that gives you Yes/No buttons or you could just hack something.

It was just a rough idea. May end up being a tickbox that you can tick on the first "Add new species" page, and a hint to "The species name you have given is also a synonym of <current name> - if you really want to add it, use the 'Back button' on your browser to go back and tick the box for 'I know there is a synonym for this species'". Again, just another rough idea, not necessarily the EXACT way.

[Of course, this should also be done on renames!]

I would still be interested in the specifics.

So would I.

--
Mats

[Jools]

You know, thinking about it, how about just making it fail with a comment about posting the details in the lounge.

Keeps it simple and is in line with my favourite line about not spending ~25% of your time developing functionality that can get used less than 5% of the time. IMHO check boxes etc make for an overly complex "user experience" in this case.

Jools

[MatsP]

By "Lounge" you mean Cat-eLog issues? And then you do the "fixup" manually?

--
Mats

[Jools]

I meant the mod area, but yes, the catelog forum would be a better idea wouldn't it.

Jools

[MatsP]

I meant the mod area, but yes, the catelog forum would be a better idea wouldn't it.

Jools

Considering some of the data adders aren't mods, probably ...

--
Mats

[Birger]

Here a synonym is used with two species.

An explanation is in order as to the status of the synonym, Synodontis ornatus. There is a paper by Pappenheim & Boulenger(1914) using Synodontis ornatus which shows a drawing of a fish that very much looks like a Synodontis nigrita, the fish shown in this paper is now considered a synonym of S. nigrita. A second paper by Boulenger (1920) using Synodontis ornatus shows a drawing of a fish that looks like the images that are shown for Synodontis ornatissima which this second ornatus is now a synonym of.

[Jools]

OK, so does S. nigrita not have a synonym of S. ornatus on Planet just because it's not been typed in?

Jools

[Birger]

It has been added in both but I would think this is something a program would not allow.

In that particular case Boulenger tried to use the name for what turned out to be a nigrita so it failed. Then a few years later he tried to use it again for another fish that turned out to already be ornatissima.

So if one were to do a search in the database for ornatus it should come up in both as seperate cases.

Birger

[Shane]

Thanks for the above example Birger.

The most common case where I have seen it occur is when a new sp is split out of the material someone else used to describe a sp.

So I collect a bunch of Chaetostoma specimens and describe them as a new sp. One becomes my holotype and the rest paratypes. Years later Mats is digging through my paratypes and realizes that there are actually two distinct Chaetostoma spp amongst them. My original holotype becomes the representative for the sp I described... while Mats chooses one of my former paratypes to be the new holotype for the sp he describes.

-Shane