Botanical nomenclatural query
dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Wed Apr 3 15:41:21 CST 2002
If I may restate the issue here at hand (as I understand it):
If a taxon is raised to a new rank it is the custom to retain the epithet of
the former rank.
The question is, does this custom have a basis in the ICBN, either as a rule
or as a recommendation? Or is this by implication only?
What is to stop anybody who dislikes current epithets from moving these taxa
to a new rank (say from a variety to a subspecies or vice versa) and
attaching new epithets?
Paul van Rijckevorsel
NL-3502 HA Utrecht
----- Original Message -----
From: Guy Redeuilh <redeuilh at CLUB-INTERNET.FR>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: Botanical nomenclatural query
> I said myself that the Art 7.3 has a wide wording allowing an
> of our case as "nomen novum". But...
> This article concern the problem of typification of a nomen novum only. It
> is not by itself a fundamental definition of the nomen novum concept. Such
> definition... don't exists in the Code : Art 7.3, 33.2, 33N.2, 58.1 are
> APPLICATIONS of the nomen novum concept, they no provide DEFINITION !
> I persist : the case is not treated in the Code (as far I know) where all
> examples of avowed substitutions concern illegitimate names ONLY !
> In the Code, is seems to exist a clear link between illegitimacy and
> Is this an illusion ? If it is, if the intended rule is extensive, an
> example with a legitimate replaced synonym must be added !
More information about the Taxacom