Botanical nomenclatural query

Guy Redeuilh redeuilh at CLUB-INTERNET.FR
Tue Apr 2 20:19:55 CST 2002


Dear Thomas and John,

I obviously agree in the fact that the new name "is based on an earlier published description and type".
I agree too that reading Art. 7.3 only, the conclusion could be : it is a nomen novum.

Therefore the problem is that : the nomen novum concept in the ICBN is (apparently) not made for such a case.
In all cases where the nomen novum concept appear, the "replaced name" is clearly illegitimate (or generally : not usable). This is notably true in Art.58.1, the main article for concrete application of this concept. This article explicitely and exclusively concern replacement of illegitimate names !
  In our case the replaced synonym is not illegitimate.

I convince my first statement "it is a species nova" was apparently "heretic", but it was suggested by a strict reading of the Code. I have difficulties to admit the solution be clearly "it is a nomen novum". Then I remain in the trouble.
The case seems to be not definitely foreseen and apparently not explained in the Code (but error !).

If really the intended sense of the nomen novum concept include our case, it would be necessary to add something in the Code, perhaps our simple example. John, you are the right man ...

Guy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John McNeill" <johnm at rom.on.ca>
To: <redeuilh at CLUB-INTERNET.FR>; <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Botanical nomenclatural query


Dear Guy:  I guess this query was intended for me but I am delighted to see that Thomas Lammers has already answered it clearly and, as I see it, correctly.  Like him I would label it "nom. et stat. nov.", as it is based on an earlier published description and type.  John.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeill, Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum;
    Honorary Associate ,Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
Mailing address:  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.
Telephone:    +44-131-248-2912;  fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office:  +44-162-088-0651;  fax: +44-162-088-0342
e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.org.uk (johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



<<< Guy Redeuilh <redeuilh at CLUB-INTERNET.FR>  4/ 1  7:06p >>>
Sorry for precision : you agree with the submitted case is a "sp. nov", I
suppose ?

G. Redeuilh

----- Original Message -----
From: "John McNeill" <johnm at ROM.ON.CA>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Botanical nomenclatural query


It is really rather extraordinary that such a simple, if perhaps a little
unusual, question should generate so much discussion.  The matter was
clearly and fully answered by Tom Lammers in the first response.  Gurcharan
Singh is just wrong.  In botanical nomenclature a name only has priority in
its own rank -- there is nothing corresponding to the co-ordinate rank
status of the ICZN.  John McNeill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
John McNeill, Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum;
    Honorary Associate ,Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
Mailing address:  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.
Telephone:    +44-131-248-2912;  fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office:  +44-162-088-0651;  fax: +44-162-088-0342
e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.org.uk (johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------


<<< Gurcharan Singh <singhg at SATYAM.NET.IN>  3/30  7:51a >>>
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Melot <jacques.melot at ISHOLF.IS>
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Date: 30 March, 2002 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: Botanical nomenclatural query


Selecting a new specific epithet for the taxon which is already known as a
variety would have been OK only if the varietal epithet would already have
been used (preoccupied at specific level) for a different species within the
genus. In the case under discussion new combination at specific level based
on the already known taxon (with proper diagnosis, typification and
publication) would be proper and ethical and should be nomenclaturally
correct and not a "nom. et stat. nov.

"nom. et stat. nov. would have been justified only if the epithet was
preoccupied at specific level

Gurcharan Singh



>>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."
>    A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its
>epithet, is INAPPROPRIATE or DISAGREABLE, or because another is
>preferable or better known [...] or because it has LOST ITS ORIGINAL
>MEANING [...]


>>Can I have opinions about the validity of the "nom. et stat. nov."?
>>
>>(My own opinion is that it was validly published...)

                        




More information about the Taxacom mailing list