Botanical nomenclatural query
lammers at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
Wed Apr 3 08:02:44 CST 2002
At 05:25 PM 4/3/02 +0000, erast wrote:
> Personally, I always (if possible) combined a variety, when it was
> assigned as a species, indicating the original author of the taxon in
> parentheses. It is a question of ethics, I think. Why it is as it is in
> the ICBN, I cannot understand.
Let's say it was in the Code, that Rec. 24B.2 was a Rule.
To get around it, to in effect change the epithet upon changing rank, I
simply describe a new species, based on its own type, and cite the variety
as a synonym. Now, instead of one nomenclatural entity, we have two, each
typified by its own type. Perhaps some see that as good and proper, each
epithet with a type, or perhaps others see it as an unneccessary
proliferation. I can see both viewpoints, frankly.
Whatever the case, it would STILL be possible to change the epithet upon
changing rank if the Recommendation was a Rule. Only by deleting the Rule
that says names have priority only within a rank could you get around it,
and THAT would cause nomenclatural chaos of Biblical proportions.
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
Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and biogeography
of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
More information about the Taxacom