Basionym/Protologue -- One more question
lammers at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
Fri Jun 28 07:45:49 CDT 2002
I don't think so. By definition, the protologue brings into existence the
basionym. However, sometimes the protologue may fulfill the requirement
for a description or diagnosis by reference to an earlier effectively
published description or diagnosis, but that earlier pub is NOT considered
Fred Schmertz realizes a certain set of populations in California is
distinguishable and elects to recognize them as a species, Plantus exemplus
Schmertz. He finds an earlier description of these populations by Joe
Schmuggle in his Plants of California book; Schmuggle identified them by
some already existing name, Plantus albus L., which Schmertz species
believes does not occur west of the Mississippi River. Instead of writing
a description or diagnosis of his new species, he merely gives a reference
to Schmuggle's existing description of "Plantus albus sensu Schmuggle non L."
BUT, Schmertz's pub is the protologue, not Schmuggle's.
At 11:04 PM 6/27/02 -1000, Richard Pyle wrote:
>I've got one last question related to my ealier inquiries about Basionyms &
>Protologues: Is it true that the Basionym is always derived from the
>Protologue? Or, is it possible that the Basionym is attributed to one
>Reference/Author, while the Protologue is contained within another?
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