Talk:Tautonymy

Both the ICBN and ICZN are available online. Why not spend a few hours with these so as to argue with facts in hand rather than from mistaken belief? Brya 05:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly these pages should be merged, it's just a trivial difference in wording in the two codes. Gdr 20:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the pages should be merged. "Tautonym" and "tautonymy" (and don't forget "tautonymous name"!) are closely related topics, both being terms used in scientific nomenclature, being based on the same Greek roots, having nearly identical spellings, and having virtually identical meanings. By all means clarify the differences and distinctions between botanical and zoological nomenclature, but be reasonable about it. I see no point in keeping them separate. MrDarwin 14:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like one page can deal with this across both botany and zoology. I don't see the value in having the three pages we currently have: Tautonym, Tautonymy, and Tautonym (botany). In fact, all 3 of the pages contain much of the same material, including many of the same examples, and Tautonymy currently does a good job, as far as I can tell, in describing the differences between zoological and botanical nomenclature. I'm not sure I have a strong opinion about what the merged page should be called (I suppose we could even consider "tautonyms and tautonymous names" if the name of the page is really the issue). Kingdon 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This was a stupid argument from the beginning, and it seems like everyone involved has ignored it for six months, so I went ahead and did it. KarlM 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with "stupid argument", but I was trying to be diplomatic given the history of edit wars. Kingdon 10:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]