Nomenclature vs botanical tradition

Athanasios at Athanasios at
Sun Feb 23 17:48:45 CST 1997

Here is another problem with...

The current ICBN, i.e. the Tokyo edition of 1994, that has settled the
>most contentious generic genders by fiat:
>  62.1 A generic name retains the gender assigned by botanical tradition,
>  irrespective of classical usage or the author's original usage.  A
>  generic name without a botanical tradition retains the gender assigned
>  by its author.
>  Note 1. Botanical tradition usually maintains the classical gender of a
>  Greek or Latin word, when this was well established.

The generic name Platoma (Rhodophyta) first appeared in the literature with
neuter gender (Montagne 1841), but as a nomen nudum. It was later validated
with feminine gender (Schmitz 1894 ?). Since then most have treated it as a
feminine word. However, Platoma is a Greek word with neuter gender,
apparently based on the classical word Platyma (also of neuter gender and
with about the same meaning).

The question is which AUTHOR should be accredited with the correct
orthography. Montagne (1841) who first published it correctly but as a
nomen nudum, or Schmitz (1894) who first validated it apparently not being
aware of the correct orthography ?


A. Athanasiadis

Athanasios Athanasiadis
University of Goeteborg
Department of Marine Botany
Carl Skottsbergs Gata 22
S-413 19 Goeteborg
Tel. Int-31-7732710; 199718
Fax. Int-31-7732727

More information about the Taxacom mailing list