revision of ICBN
JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE
josephl at AZTEC.ASU.EDU
Wed Apr 2 15:00:16 CST 1997
TOM LAMMERS WROTE:
"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