Amanita vaginata

Sun Jul 26 15:29:14 CDT 1998

This is in reply to Rod Tulloss's query concerning Amanita vaginata.
Rod sent the note to the list, and also to me personally,
presumably because it affects a paper he and I are collaborating
on. Let me send my reply to the list in the hopes that
someone can correct me if I am mistaken.
   First, let me see if I understand the problem. In Year A, Lamarck
coined the name Amanita vaginata citing one previously published
illustration. In Year
B, he used the same name again, but cited a different illustration.
The first illustration conflicts sharply with present usage, but
the second illustration does not. The question is whether or not
you can regard these as two separate names, homonyms by the same
author, rejecting the first while conserving the second. Is this
a fair summary, Rod?
    My reading of the ICBN suggests that it depends on whether
Lamarck in Year B intended to coin a new name. Did he, for example,
cite his own Year A publication in his Year B redescription? If he
thought he was simply reusing a name he had already coined, tough.
There is only one name, with the illustration mentioned in Year A as
the lectotype. You then have to petition the International Committee
to conserve the Year C name by the other author.
     If, on the other hand, he thought he was coining a new name, or
redefining the name with a new type or a new definition, yes, you
can treat them as separate names and petition the International
Committee to declare the Year B name conserved over the Year A
    Either way, you will have to start writing a conservation/rejection

Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
"Computito ergo sum ...  I link therefore I am."

More information about the Taxacom mailing list