Botanical nomenclatural query

Jacques Melot jacques.melot at ISHOLF.IS
Tue Apr 2 14:51:40 CST 2002


  Le 30/03/02, à 0:17 +0100, nous recevions de Guy Redeuilh :

>  >     Ce n'est pas une sp. nov., mais - par définition même - un nom de
>>  remplacement (nom. nov.), car publié pour un taxon ayant déjà reçu un
>>  nom (à un rang différent), et que le type est le même. (Il s'agirait
>>  d'une sp. nov. si le type était différent.)
>>
>  >     Jacques Melot
>
>
>
>
>Jacques : sur quel article du Code te bases-tu pour affirmer cela ?



    Je vois à l'instant que John McNeill vient de répondre, dans la
foulée de Thomas Lammers, à une question qui m'avait été adressée à
l'origine (ci-dessus).


    J'avais en effet oublié de répondre à ta question. Ma réponse
est : je ne me base pas sur un article, mais sur une définition.

- Même type : comb. nov. ou nom. nov., suivant les cas.

- Type différent : tax. nov.

    C'est d'ailleurs ce que j'avais déjà répondu et que Thomas Lammers
et John McNeill t'ont confirmé.

    Jacques


>Guy
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jacques Melot" <jacques.melot at isholf.is>
>To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
>Cc: "Guy Redeuilh" <redeuilh at club-internet.fr>
>Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 11:01 PM
>Subject: Re: Botanical nomenclatural query
>
>
>>    Le 29/03/02, à 18:19 +0100, nous recevions de Guy Redeuilh :
>>
>>  >Dear Michael
>>  >
>>  >As far as the varietal original epithet is not preoccupied at
>>  >specific rank, the new name with a new epithet at specific rank is
>>  >not a nomen novum but a species nova
>>
>>
>>
>  >     Ce n'est pas une sp. nov., mais - par définition même - un nom de
>>  remplacement (nom. nov.), car publié pour un taxon ayant déjà reçu un
>>  nom (à un rang différent), et que le type est le même. (Il s'agirait
>>  d'une sp. nov. si le type était différent.)
>>
>  >     Jacques Melot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  >(the specific name is validly published if the new author indicates
>>  >the full bibliographical citation of the place where the diagnosis
>>  >latina and type of the varierty were previously published).
>>  >
>>  >Variety and species have now homotypic names, i. e. these names are
>>  >nomenclatural synonyms.
>>  >
>>  >Guy
>>
>>
>  >
>  >>
>  > >----- Original Message -----
>>  >From: "Michael Vincent" <vincenma at MUOHIO.EDU>
>>  >To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
>>  >Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 4:02 PM
>>  >Subject: Botanical nomenclatural query
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  Dear Botanical TAXACOM members:
>>  >>
>>  >>  A debate has been raging among some botanists about whether a certain
>taxon
>>  >>  was validly published, with some having very strong opinions that it
>was
>>  >>  and others having equally strong opinions that it was not, so I
>thought I'd
>>  >>  run it past TAXACOM members...
>>  >>
>>  >>  About a decade ago, a botanist published a new variety of plant, and
>the
>>  >>  variety was validly and effectively published, with Latin diagnosis
>and
>>  >>  type designated, so there is no problem with that name at that rank.
>>  >>
>>  >>  A few years later, a very prominent botanist decided that the taxon
>>  >>  deserved specific rank.  He decided that the varietal epithet was not
>>  >>  appropriate for the species, and coined a new epithet for the species,
>>  >>  calling it a "nom. et stat. nov."  He made clear and direct reference
>to
>>  >>  the varietal name and its publication, and the same type was used.
>The new
>>  >>  name was published effectively.
>>  >>
>>  >>  The debate has been over whether this was a valid way to publish the
>new
>>  >>  species name.  Things would have been simple if the varietal epithet
>had
>>  >>  simply been raised to the new rank, which then would have been a
>>  >>"comb. nov."
>>  >>
>>  >>  Can I have opinions about the validity of the "nom. et stat. nov."?
>>  >>
>>  >>  (My own opinion is that it was validly published...)
>>  >>
>>  >>  Thanks.
>>  >>  M.A. Vincent
>>  >>
>>  >>  Dr. Michael A. Vincent, Curator
>>  >>  W.S. Turrell Herbarium (MU)
>>  >>  Department of Botany
>>  >>  Miami University
>>  >>  Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA
>>  >>
>>  >>  TEL:  513-529-2755
>>  >>  FAX:  513-529-4243
>>  >>  Email:  Vincenma at muohio.edu
>>  >>
>>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list