Veldkamp at NHN.LEIDENUNIV.NL
Mon Jul 30 10:42:34 CDT 2001
It's the oldest name that counts: rule of priority. Amaranthaceae is the
oldest one listed by you. If, as you say, the Betaceae included both the
Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae, it is a superfluous name and
illegitimate, so that can certainly not be used, unless conserved.
At 11:06 AM 7/30/01 +0300, you wrote:
>Dear List members,
>Recently families Amaranthaceae and Chenopodiaceae have been merged and
>the name accepted is Amaranthaceae, which was first described by Adanson,
>Fam. Pl. 2: 266. Jul.-Aug. 1763 (Amaranthi).
>Long ago, in the year 1835, Burnett described the family Betaceae in Outl.
>Bot.: 591, 1091, 1142. Jun. 1835. Burnett's concept of Betaceae included
>both the present day Amaranthaceae s. str. and Chenopodiaceae.
>My question to the listmember, especially those interested in
>nomenclature, is :
>Why Betaceae (1835) should not be adopted for the family comprising both
>Amaranthaceae Adans. s. str.(1763) and Chenopodiaceae Vent. (1799).
>Thanks and appreciation for the anticipated replies.
>Scientific Research Specialist,
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/2001
Dr. J.F. Veldkamp
Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Universiteit Leiden branch
2300 RA Leiden
e-mail: veldkamp at nhn.leidenuniv.nl
fax: + 31 0715 27 35 11
More information about the Taxacom