Weirdness of ICBN

Curtis Clark jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU
Thu Jan 4 12:40:07 CST 1996

At 03:45 PM 1/3/96 -1200, warren frank lamboy wrote:
>I like the rule just the way it is.

What I'm asking is, since when was this the rule?

>  Since the author citation for a name
>is intended to be a literature citation, only the authority for the (in
>this example) variety is necessary.  Why would one also need the authority
>for the species name?

Either the species name in a trinomial is the same as the species name by
itself, or it isn't.  If it is, leaving off the author is a typographic
convention, not a nomenclatural one, since the species does still have its
original author.  If it isn't, if instead the trinomial stands as a unit
with only one author, situations such as that presented by Barbara Ertter
can arise, where a species name could be valid as part of a trinomial, but a
nomen nudum by itself.  I can't believe the Code allows this, but I don't
have a recent copy at hand.

All this especially doesn't make sense in that genera have authors,
independent of the authorship of their species (e.g. Encelia can be
attributed to either Adanson or Scopoli, neither of whom ever named a
species in the genus).

Curtis Clark
Biological Sciences Department                     Voice: (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona    FAX:   (909) 869-4396
Pomona CA 91768-4032                               jcclark at

More information about the Taxacom mailing list