sfarmer at SABRE.GOLDSWORD.COM
Sat Jul 26 12:03:26 CDT 1997
>> Does the ruling change depending on *when* the "incorrect" type
>> was published.
>I don't understand what you mean by "incorrect type"; I thought it was
>only an incorrect attribution of rank. The main date implications are
>those involved in the requirements for valid publication of a new
>combination, most notably that, before 1 January 1953, indication of
>the basionym and "a full and direct reference ... to its author and
>place of publication" (Art. 33.2) are not required.
Yes it was Trillium. I know I couldn't fool somebody from Ontario! :-)
Sorry for the mistype above. I should have said when the "incorrect" *name*
rather than type. (feeble excuse offered here) It was late and I'd been
staring at noenclature all day, and my feeble brain completely lost the
fact that the word "type" had a clear and special meaning when dealing
Several of the other instances of similar errors take place *after* 1953
(in the 80's) with "a full and direct reference ... to its author and
place of publication," but the subspecific status is cited incorrectly.
Thanks for all your help.
sfarmer at goldsword.com
More information about the Taxacom