Rodham E. Tulloss
ret at PLUTO.NJCC.COM
Sat Jul 25 21:00:35 CDT 1998
This is question about the definition of "name" in the ICBN.
The change of starting dates for some fungi from Fries to Linnaeus has
altered the meaning of a key name in the genus Amanita. Namely, Amanita
vaginata. The change of starting date makes the correct author citation
"(Bull.:Fr.) Lamarck." The problem arises because of the requirements
regarding lectotypification. The only piece of original material available
would be Bulliard's first plate of Agaricus vaginatus. Whatever this
entity is (and this is quite unclear), it is not what has been understood
as A. vaginata since Fries' times. Amanita vaginata is the type of the
conserved generic name Amanitopsis. Amanita vaginata is also the type
of a major section of the genus Amanita (sect. Vaginatae). The alteration
of the meaning of the name would be extremely undesirable.
So we turn to the possibility of proposing conservation or rejection of
a specific combination in favor of the same combination by a later author
(reject A. vaginata (Bull.:Fr.) Lamarck or conserve A. vaginata (Bull.:Fr.)
rejection of the first publication of the name Agaricus vaginatus Bull. (with
the uninterpretable and distressing plate) in favor of the second publication
of the same name several years later with a plate, that while definitely
requiring an epitype for interpretation, is at least interpretable in a way
that doesn't disrupt the typification of a genus or a section.
Can the concept of "name" be sliced this thin?
I would be very interested in the expert opinions of taxacom participants.
More information about the Taxacom