JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE
josephl at AZTEC.ASU.EDU
Fri Mar 28 19:24:37 CST 1997
I wish to call to everyone's attention the following
advertizement, which appeared in
the 28 March issue of the Dandy Dime. The Dandy Dime of
Tucson, Arizona, USA, should not be confused with the Nifty
Nickel from Las Cruces, New Mexico. The entire text of the ad
Pliny the Elder's cactus (Mammillaria volubilis, foliis
viridibus) is now on sale. The plant is typified by Ludlow's
plant #4764 at Harvard's Arnold Arboretum, but is well-
adapted to Tucson's climate. 326-4868.
Thus Mammillaria volubilis is now a validly and legitimately
published scientific name. I cite the following articles from
the ICBN in support of this.
29.1 Publication is effected under this Code only by the
distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or
gift) to the general public or at least to botanical
institutions with libraries accessible to botanists
The Dandy Dime is published by printing press (NOT photocopy)
in Tucson and distributed free of charge at every grocery
store and convenience store in the metropolitan area. I
checked the on-line catalogues of the only three libraries in
Tucson (University of Arizona, Pima Community College, and
Pima County Public) and none of them had it. However, this
appears unnecessary. Indeed, the way Article 29.1 is worded,
it appears to favor distribution to the general public over
deposition of the material in libraries, botanical or
30.3 Publication on or after 1 January 1953 in trade
catalogues or non-scientific newspapers, and on or after 1
January 1973 in seed-exchange lists, does not constitute
The Dandy Dime is obviously not a seed-exchange list nor a
trade catalogue. It is certainly non-scientific, but cannot
reasonably be referred to as a newspaper because it does not
include any news. It consists 100% of paid advertizements. If
the presence of paid ads in a periodical removes it from
being an acceptible venue for publication, even Science is
disqualified. The fact that some mysterious person or persons
paid $6.40 for the ad is also irrelevent, as many scientific
journals also have page charges. Hence Article 30.3 does not
exclude the name published there from validity.
46.6 In determining the correct author citation, only
internal evidence in the publication where the name was
validly published is to be accepted.
Hence Gaius Plinius Secundus is the author to be cited, even
though "Pliny the Elder" died in 79 A.D. and never heard of a
dime (dandy or otherwise). The full citation is thus
Mammillaria volubilis Plinius, Dandy Dime, 28 March 1997, p
11.2 In no case does a name have priority outside the rank in
which it is published.
The holotype of this name (Ludlow et al. 4769 at A) is also a
Scrophularia chasmophila subsp. xizangensis Hong, Novon
Hence if this taxon is ever recognised at the species level,
the correct name will be
Scrophularia volubilis (Plinius) Whoever.
The fact that Scrophularia and Mammillaria are in different
families (Scrophulariaceae and Cactaceae) is totally
The anonymous author of the ad asked me to convey her sincere
apologies to the next person to monograph Scrophularia.
I shall deposit a copy of the appropriate issue of Dandy Dime
in the herbarium library at HUMO and send another to the
editors of Index Kewensis (along with a copy of this
posting). I have a few extras if anyone is interested. Others
can probably be obtained from the Dandy Dime (Address: 4574 E
Broadway, Tucson AZ 85711 USA; 520-327-4907).
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere, 4717 E First St., Tucson AZ 85711 USA.
After 10 Apr 1997: Herbario, CEAMISH, Universidad Autonoma del
Estado de Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
More information about the Taxacom