Talk:Tautonym

This page seems to be missing a basic definition of the word. There's a discussion of how it differs in zoology and botony, and an example, but nothing actually says what a tautonym _is_. Jtl 02:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to reword the article to start with a definition (inspired by the article on tautonymy), then give the examples and finally discuss the differences between zoology and botany. I have changed only the style, since I'm not an expert in this field (well, I've just discovered that my user name is a tautonymy :)). MJ 10:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that moving the example upwards is likely to be helpful to the reader. Your name is NOT a tautonmy, as it does not repeat the spelling.


 * As to the merge proposal. Of course there is a strong feeling in wikipedia that animals are more important than plants, that plant nomenclature should be animal nomenclauture and that plant nomenclature should only be dealt with as footnotes or anecdotes in articles on animal nomenclature, which then is called scientific nomenclature. Still, if wikipedia is ever to become an encyclopedia this is not a good idea. Brya 06:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Brya, you are percieving assaults on your field where I doubt any exist. I am now reverting for consistency, as there is a page called List of tautonyms, all of which are non-plants, so apparently the community at large has not accepted that "only plant names can be tautonyms". Please feel free to add a paragraph explaining what you think, why you think it, and perhaps quote your source. If "tautonym" is a term used in zoology, and there is a list of tautonyms that should be linked from this page, then you might just have to bend a bit so that the article contains the information a user might be trying to find. Consider this my second revert. SB Johnny 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:tautonymy. Tautonym is not a term used in zoology. A list of zoological names should only be linked to from a page discussing zoological practice. Brya 05:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The contradiction tag on this article refers to contradiction with List of tautonyms.SB Johnny 08:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Having two separate pages for Tautonym and Tautonymy is an utterly ridiculous piece of grammatic pedantry. "Tautonymy – the subject or study of tautonyms; tautonyms collectively, a set of tautonyms". I.e., they are the same. The name Rattus rattus (an animal) is a tautonym. It isn't a tautonymy - there's no such thing as "a tautonymy". So is the name Larix larix (a plant) a tautonym, an example of the tautonymy found in the history of botany. All it means is that the ICBN and the ICZN have slightly different grammatic styles of presentation. There is absolutely no difference between the two codes in their actual use and meaning of the term. The only difference is that one code accepts them for names, the other rejects them. Please study, and learn, some English grammar. - MPF 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, the wonderful attitude of "I don't know anything about the topic and cannot be bothered to look it up, so therefore I am the person best qualified to edit this page" that shines through in so many Wikipedia pages and which rouses such great confidence in the quality and reliabity of Wikipedia!


 * The ICZN is a formal body of rules. It is the way it is. Anybody not happy with it, can go and convince the ICZN people to change the rule book. Just saying in a solemn tone of voice "parking a car in front of somebody else's house is a felony" does not make it so. You may think that it should be, but it is not a matter which is up to you.


 * Tautonyms in the ICBN and tautonymy in the ICZN are the same only from a sufficient distance. A comparable case might be airplanes and helicopters: these are the same in that both are machines to transport people through the air. A Wikipedia entry on the helicopter should not be "it is an airplane, with some marginal differences" but should deal with helicopters in their own right.


 * In the ICZN there is no such thing as a tautonym. Do look it up. Of course it is possible to say a little more on the topic, but given the tendency of people to edit nonsense into these pages I am very much inclined to stick to the literal facts. Brya 04:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I did look up both the ICBN and the ICZN, and understand perfectly well what they mean. Yourself, please look up 'tautonymy' in a dictionary. Well, actually, you don't need to, because I've already quoted the dictionary definition above. The difference between 'tautonym' and 'tautonymy' is not like the difference between airplanes and helicopters; it is like the difference between 'airplane' and 'airplanes'. For heaven's sake, try and learn some English language. - MPF 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the two pages should be merged, it's just a minor difference in wording in the two codes. Gdr 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Although nobody cares about the facts here let me give an example of what the new opening sentence means (Tautonym is a term in scientific nomenclature, meaning that the name of a genus is repeated as a name of its species).


 * The species name of white oak is Quercus alba; it repeats the genus name Quercus: thus it is a tautonym (as is any name of any species). Brya 06:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the opening could be a bit more pedantic. But that's not an argument against merging the articles. Gdr 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit: the zoological code uses the term "tautonymy" to refer to a concept in which the the genus name and species name (the ICZN does not use the term "epithet" although I know that some zoologists do) are identical whereas the botanical code uses the term "tautonym" as a noun to refer to a name in which the genus name and specific epithet are identical. The zoological code uses the phrase "tautonymous name" in place of the word "tautonym". Yet there are botanists who use the word "tautonymy" to refer to a concept and zoologists who use the word "tautonym" as a noun because there really is more to systematics and the language that systematists use than the codes themselves. So in the strictest possible technical sense, Brya is correct, but is holding Wikipedia to a far stricter standard than the one to which zoological and botanical systematists hold themselves. (For example there are numerous terms like "isoneotype" and "clonotype" that do not appear anywhere in the botanical code but are widely used and accepted among botanists, simply for lack of any better term.) To imply that the words "tautonym" and "tautonymy" bear no relation to each other, and must reside in separate Wikipedia articles, simply flies in the face of common sense. Combine them in one article and simply point out the technical differences in usage in the respective Codes. (Now, if anybody really cares to prove Brya wrong, I would suggest finding the word "tautonym" used in an authoritataive zoological reference, and the word "tautonymy" in an authoritative botanical reference.) MrDarwin 13:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting to finally see somebody who is taking an interest in the facts of the matter. Technically this is almost correct. What it fails to take into account is the difference between formal usage and informal usage: these are rather different. Brya 20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"A Tautonym is a word or term made from two identical parts or syllables, such as bon-bon, da-da, or wikiwiki."
I could be wrong but I'm pretty certain that the words "tautonym", "tautonymy" and "tautonymous" are pretty much unique to biological nomenclature. I've never heard of such a concept outside of biology, and in biology it refers very specifically to the formulation of species names. Thus saying that "A Tautonym is a word or term made from two identical parts or syllables, such as bon-bon, da-da, or wikiwiki" is a bit misleading as it implies that anybody other than a biologist (or somebody talking about biological nomenclature) would use the word. MrDarwin 23:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll throw the sources in when I have time to look for them again. Apparently it's a linguistic term as well. SB Johnny 10:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's one . SB Johnny 10:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I found those as well, but they appear the exception (probably very recent, too). Also do note that if that were all there was, there would inevitably be suggestions to move it to wiktionary. Not wikipedia material. Brya 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it has a lot of play on numerous websites, though mostly on sites dealing with xword puzzle solving. Might be interesting to find the origins of this use, of course. (Not worth a separate article, perhaps, but certainly worth a mention in the article). SB Johnny 16:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the age of this usage can probably be measured in years, rather than the centuries for the biological usage. And very restricted. Brya 17:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The general linguistic term for that phenomenon is "reduplication". I will change the page accordingly.--Tacitus 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Brya appears to be gone for the time being and everyone else has ignored this as well for six months, I went ahead and merged the two pages. Hopefully that's it for this absurd argument, but who knows... KarlM 21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Tautonymic names" more inclusive?
How is "tautonymic names" "more inclusive" than tautonym, when -nym means name? The expression seems a tautology to me. --Hugh7 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Tautonyms "don't exist"?; earlier revision was clearer
I really don't like the way this article reads subsequent to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tautonym&action=historysubmit&diff=282277617&oldid=276300380

Is there any objection at this point to reverting it to something more like it was prior to that edit? I particularly object to "An example of a botanical tautonym that does not exist is Larix larix...". This makes it sounds like Larix larix is a fictitious example contrived for illustrative purposes. As I understand it, Larix larix isn't validly published, and thus has no nomenclatural standing for priority purposes, but it is effectively published, and this name does show up in 19th century literature, as well as 20th century nomenclatural databases. Is it fair to say the ICBN defines a category (names effectively, but not validly published) that has no members because these names "don't exist"?

Additionally (and I see this has been discussed before), it seems overly pedantic to say "no tautonym exists" because the ICZN uses the term "tautonymous name" instead of "tautonym", and botanical tautonyms "don't exist". The ICBN uses the term "tautonym" in 23.4; again, going from botanical tautonyms have no nomenclatural standing to botanical tautonyms "don't exist" is quite a stretch.

"Tautoynmous names" in zoology is "more inclusive" than "tautonyms"; fine, but this comes down to a major difference between the codes. The zoological Principle of Coordination means that Gorilla gorilla is also established when somebody publishes Gorilla aus subsp. gorilla, and both are considered tautonymous names. Botany doesn't have the principle of coordination, so Larix decidua var. larix would not be a tautonym, and could be validly published (although clearly inadvisable). There doesn't really seem to be any difference in the zoological vs. botanical concept of tautonymy other than the need to accomodate the presence or absence of the Principle of Coordination. In both codes, a tautonym is identical genus+species. In zoology, we just have to remember that a subspecies name is also nomenclaturally relevant at the species rank (Species group).192.104.39.2 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)