From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Tree of Life (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page doesn't cover the use of "chresonymy" for misidentifications. [1] has a very readable description of chresonymy on pages 9-11, but I hesitate to add it to this page myself without a consensus from other editors (because zoologists and botanists have different views of what synonymy means.) Nadiatalent (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently these are sometimes called orthochresonyms and heterochresonyms. Have added a source (zoological). Shyamal (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. This will need some work to clarify the page. The single example currently included only covers the synonymy case (orthohresonym), not the case of alleged misidentification (heterochresonymy), and the text could use some spacing out to separate these two situations. I'll look for some examples with real organisms. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I find this article quite unclear (and I read quite a bit about taxonomy and nomenclature).

"Taxonomic catalogues such as The Catalog of Living Whales by Hershkovitz[5], may reference this usage with a Genus+species+authorship convention that may appear to indicate a new species (a homonym) when in fact it is referencing a particular usage of a species name (a chresonym). Hershkovitz, for examples refers to Physeter catodon Harmer 1928, which can cause confusion as this name+author combination really refers to the same name that Linnaeus first published in 1758."

Under the Botanical Code, it is simply an error to add an author to indicate usage rather than authorship. (I don't know about the Zoological Code.) If Physeter catodon were a plant, what should have been written by Hershkovitz is "Physeter catodon Linnaeus (1758) sensu Harmer (1928)", or if Harmer altered the circumscription of the species significantly, Hershkovitz could have written "Physeter catodon Linnaeus (1758) emend. Harmer (1928)" (the dates are optional in botany).

I note that the references all relate to zoology. I suspect that, at least as written, this concept does not apply to groups covered by other codes. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This term does seem to have krept into some texts, why is actually beyond me but that is not important. What is important is that it has no foundation in the ICZN code either. Hence it is not a valid taxonomic term in zoology either. Faendalimas talk 00:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


"The term "chresonym" is derived from the Greek "chresis"[citation needed] and refers to published usage of a name." - so, for us not fluent in Greek, what does chresis mean? (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. I haven't found the original source of the term "chresonym", but χρήσις in Modern Greek means "use" (the noun, not the verb, as in the phrase "the use of"). However at least in the Greek of New Testament times, it appears to have been used in a sexual sense to mean intercourse. See [2]. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Citation added. I've been a little free with the quote from the Smiths with "a use" rather than just "use", because that would be ambiguous as noun/verb, but they clearly meant noun. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)