JFOURNIER at MUS-NATURE.CA
Mon Jan 8 17:49:00 CST 1996
> > Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 12:38:24 -0800
> > From: Curtis Clark <jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU>
> > Subject: Re: Infraspecific author citations
>> Let's say you are naming a new subsp. of Ivieia
> > neocalifornica Ross (which has conveniently become a plant for this
> > example), and you will call it subsp. arizonica. Your publication would
> > Ivieia neocalifornica subsp. arizonica Laferriere, subsp. nov.
> > But let's say that there is also Ivieia neocalifornica Clark, a
> > plant. Regardless of which Ivieia neocalifornica is valid and which is a
> > later homonym, from the facts presented so far a reader in the future
> > not clearly determine which Ivieia you were naming a subspecies of.
> > in one case, your name would be invalid, this becomes important both
> > taxonomically and nomeclaturally.
Isn't this discussion a little bit specious? In any properly written
taxonomic paper, one would first cite the genus Ivieia Author Date as a
subheading, then list or discuss the different species in order, and list
any infraspecies under the species citation. Thus it would be obvious from
the text to which species one was referring. Since you are describing a
new subspecies, you are required to include a statement to the effect
differentiating the new taxon from its siblings: eg: "this subspecies is a
much darker orange than the nominal species described by Ross from the Such
& Such Desert".... or something like that. You could even do it in the
title: "A new subspecies of I. neocalifornica Ross from Arizona."
More information about the Taxacom