Botanical Nomenclature

Gurcharan Singh singhg at SATYAM.NET.IN
Sat Apr 6 08:25:20 CST 2002

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Lammers <lammers at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
Date: 04 April, 2002 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Botanical Nomenclature

>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

It is logical to avoid using the epithet  parvifolia when describing a new
species within a genus where epithet parviflora has already been used. There
is, however no justification in overlooking an epithet which has been used
at a different rank especially when we not already have that epithet
preoccupied at specific rank and no other specific epithet had already been
used for the taxon in question,

"Principle of Priority not applicable at different ranks" is primarily meant
for handling heterotypic synonyms. When changing the rank of a taxon the
epithet should be faithfully retained unless combination is rendered
illegitimate (later homonym, tautonym, etc.). When you know about a taxon at
different rank, but circumvent it by describing a new species, selecting a
new holotype and later on cite the original taxon at different rank as its
synonym, this is what I call wrong ethics and showing ways to the
manipulators. It is a totally different thing for a third person to combine
the two taxa and select the correct name using provisions of the Code.

Gurcharan Singh
Dr. Gurcharan Singh
Department of Botany                                                  Res:
932 Anand Kunj
Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College                            Vikas Puri
University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007, INDIA                          New
Email: singhg at; singhkg at
Phone: 5531534  Cell: 9810359089

More information about the Taxacom mailing list