Talk:Tautonym

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Here's one . SB Johnny 10:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The general linguistic term for that phenomenon is "reduplication". I will change the page accordingly.--Tacitus 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "A Tautonym is a word or term made from two identical parts or syllables, such as bon-bon, da-da, or wikiwiki."

message: 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)
thread_title: "Tautonymic names" more inclusive?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tautonyms "don't exist"?; earlier revision was clearer