Botanical Nomenclature

Jacques Melot jacques.melot at ISHOLF.IS
Thu Apr 4 17:30:11 CST 2002

  Le 4/04/02, à 10:24 -0600, nous recevions de Thomas Lammers :

>I'm not sure how to interpret "ethics" when dealing with something as
>peripheral to human existence as botanical nomenclature.  It seems to
>demean the word to apply it to something lkike this.

    L'éthique est importante, mais elle commence là où le Code s'arrête.

    La règle fondamentale de la priorité de la publication est une
règle éthique, mais elle est incluse dans le Code uniquement pour des
raisons techniques.

>That said, I think the reason the ICBN leaves some latitude in this matter
>is that it is recognized that sometimes there is a good reason to do so,
>e.g., to avoid having Delissea parvifolia when there is already a Delissea

    Ce n'est pas une bonne raison ! (Sinon, on aurait aussi la
possibilité de changer un nom au même rang s'il était impropre ou mal
choisi, ce qui n'est pas le cas : art. 51.1.)

    Jacques Melot

>At 09:48 PM 4/4/02 +0530, you wrote:
>>Do you think it is ethical to (even if  ICBN permits) describe as New
>>Species when a taxon (which you relegate to synonymy) has already been
>>typified and described (no matter at different rank) and epithet could be
>>transferred at specific rank without being rendered as later homonym or
>>illegitimate otherwise?
>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
>phone:      920-424-1002
>fax:           920-424-1101
>Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and biogeography
>of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
>"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
>                                                               -- Anonymous

More information about the Taxacom mailing list