family priority

Thomas Lammers lammers at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
Mon Jul 30 07:52:08 CDT 2001


At 11:06 AM 7/30/01 +0300, you wrote:

>Why Betaceae (1835) should not be adopted for the family comprising both
>Amaranthaceae Adans. s. str.(1763) and Chenopodiaceae Vent. (1799).

Because priority applies to names of family rank (Art. 11.1).  I assume the
"type genus" of Betaceae is Beta, whivch I presume is included in the same
broad family as Chenopodium and Amaranthus, the "types" of the other two
family names.  This being the case, i.e., all three "type genera" being in
one family, the correct name of the family is the
earliest.  Circumscription per se has virtually nothing to do with
determining the name of a group; application of names is based on the type
method.


Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-1002
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.

Webpages:
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/Lammers.htm
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Resort/7156/lammers.html
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/herbarium/herbarium.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                 -- Anonymous




More information about the Taxacom mailing list