ICBN art. 7.11

[Robert Mill]

Dear everyone

I've had "hallucinations" myself about the wording of Art. 7.11 twice
now - when Michael Vincent's message came in just now, and
when the Code came out in 2000. Both times I hastily started
amending my own papers and alerted our journal editor!!

But, after further thought, I agree with Thomas Lammers. The
important bit is the beginning of the Article: "For purposes of
priority ....". Unpublished names of *new* taxa will have priority
from the date their protologue is eventually effectively and validly
published, so there is nothing to worry about from that angle as
regards names of new taxa published after 1/1/01, or ones in
manuscript that you are preparing for submission. As Thomas
Lammers has already pointed out, Arts. 9.17 and 10.5, cited in
7.11, deal with lectotypification and neotypification, where the
issue of priority *is* important. From now on, in such cases we
have to write "Lectotype (here designated): ..." or "Neotypus (hic
designatus): ..." or similar, not just "Lectotype: ..." or "Neotypus:
...", but most of us have been doing that for years anyway. Now,
what has been common practice has become mandatory.

But, I agree that the wording of 7.11 is confusing and does make it
look like you have to write "Planta alba sp. nov. Type (here
designated) ...". You don't; but you would have to do that if an
equivalent clause was ever inserted to Art. 37.5, which is the one
dealing with types of new taxa at genus rank or below. At present,
that Article just states that you must use the word Typus,
Holotypus, type, holotype or their abbreviation. (Codifiers please
note - leave that Article as it is please!!!!).

Best wishes
Robert Mill

> Dear Plant-oriented TAXACOM members:
>
> Is what I see in Art. 7.11 of the ICBN really saying what it looks
> like?  It appears that any new plant species described after 1 Jan. 2001,
> in addition to having the type designated, must also have the phrase "here
> designated" or equivalent.  Am I hallucinating, or does this mean that
> almost any plant described after 1/1/2001 is invalidly published?
>


      ********************************************************
      (Dr) ROBERT R MILL
      Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
      20a Inverleith Row, EDINBURGH EH3 5LR, SCOTLAND, U.K.
      (Part of THE NATIONAL BOTANIC GARDENS OF SCOTLAND)
      E-Mail:   R.Mill at rbge.org.uk  RBGE Website: http://www.rbge.org.uk
      Direct Line: + 44 131 248 2935   Fax:  + 44 131 248 2901
                     General Enquiries: + 44 131 552 7171
        ********************************************************