revision of ICBN

Wed Apr 2 15:00:16 CST 1997


"Fair enough.  I wonder, though, if changing the word
"newspapers" in Art. 30.3 to "periodicals" might  be adequate
to cover the sort of cases Joe attempted to highlight with
his "gag" (his word).


   Of the  things I  mentioned yesterday,  this  would  still
leave the  Christmas cards,  the t-shirt,  and  the  symphony
program, not to mention the book I described a few weeks ago,
"The Nifty New Plant I Found at Grandma's." The witch story I
outlined Sunday  would also  still qualify  if published as a
book rather  than a  magazine article.  So would  a  one-page
pamphlet passed out at a botanical garden.
   I much  favor a positive rather than a negative statement,
something like  "On or  after  1  Jan  2001,  publication  is
effected if  and only  if  it  is  contained  in  a  book  or
periodical devoted  solely or primarily to publication of the
results of  scientific research  or  botanical  exploration."
Simple enough.  But note  that even  this would  exclude many
periodicals where new species are described today. Among taxa
with  members   used  as  popular  ornamentals  (e.g.  cacti,
orchids, amaryllids,  gesneriads, begonias,  etc.), there are
publications   dealing   primarily   with   gardening   tips,
publishing a new species on occasion.


"It is indeed difficult to defend my citation of the place of
publication of Clermontia grandiflora subsp. maxima Lammers
as Syst. Bot. Monogr. 32: 77. 1991, instead of Syst. & Evol.
Endemic Haw. Genus Clermontia 255. 1998."


Sorry, but you lost me there. Is the latter your thesis, with
the date a typo? This would now make sense if it were. My
feeling (as I have already expressed on taxacom a few weeks
ago, is that theses should be treated as books if they are
made widely available. They are of course much more valuable
than the Dandy Dime.


"Whatever changes are proposed, it will be important to
decide whether the new rules are retroactive, attempting to
correct past usage  (i.e., is something that was regarded as
effectively published before suddenly going to lose that
status?), or just to be enforced from here on out (i.e., a
2001 starting date)."


Well, yes. I can't picture many people supporting making
retroactive such massive changes as we are discussing, no
more than one could support de-legitimizing pre-1935 names
published without a Latin diagnosis.

PS Someone wrote to tell me that deadline for the submission
of proposals to the next Botanical Congress is this
August. Hmmmm. Maybe I shall indeed take a few hours to
send them  one or two.

Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere, Herbario, CEAMISH, Universidad
Autonoma del Estado de Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico  -- OR --
c/o Mary Laferriere, 18 Maple Ave #3, Centerdale RI 02911 USA

More information about the Taxacom mailing list