Nomenclature and the Code

Lyn Craven L.Craven at PICAN.PI.CSIRO.AU
Wed Jan 10 11:31:33 CST 1996

Lammers has written:

>The recent long thread on botanical nomenclature and the Code have
>demonstrated to me something I have suspected for a long time: there
>are only a handful of practicing plant taxonomists in the community
>who are truly competent in applying the Code to the results of taxonomic
>research.  .................  Does the systematics community see this as a
problem, that fewer and fewer
>practicing taxonomists can actually pick the correct name for a taxon?

Over the past few weeks I have been becoming more and more uneasy at the
ignorance of the ICBN being demonstrated by (apparently  practising, I have
not checked Kew Record of Taxonomic Literature to see if their names ever
appear) botanists.  It IS a problem.

 A part solution would be to actually read taxonomic papers and see how
those practising solve problems.  That way, people would also note that the
authority conventionally is not given for each element in a scientific name.

It also demonstrates that is is essential that the Editors of botanical
periodicals know the ICBN or, at least, send each paper containing
nomenclatural matters to persons capable of reviewing the nomenclatural content.

Lyn Craven
Australian National Herbarium
CSIRO Division of Plant Industry
GPO Box 1600
Canberra,  ACT  2601

Phone  61-6-2465122
Fax       61-6-2465249

More information about the Taxacom mailing list