nomenclature query

[John McNeill]

Possibly, Tom, but remember that the date of a new combination has no significance under the ICZN (unlike the ICBN).  A combination in zoology has priority from the date of publication of its basionym, creating, of course, the potential problems of "secondary homonymy".  John.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeill, Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum;
    Honorary Associate ,Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
Mailing address:  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.
Telephone:    +44-131-248-2912;  fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office:  +44-162-088-0651;  fax: +44-162-088-0342
e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.org.uk (johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<<< Thomas Lammers <lammers at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>  3/27  8:43a >>>
The Botanical Code explicitly says you HAVE to put the epithets
together;  one cannot merely imply a new combination.  Sounds as though the
ICZN could use a similar clause.

At 11:13 AM 3/27/02 +1100, you wrote:
> > At which point (if either) are the species names considered new
>combinations?  Or are they not so
> > considered until someone first actually publishes the names in those
>combinations?
>
>It's your call.  Some people say the species name must be specifically
>mentioned before it is considered a new combination (and therefore the
>source of the combination may be later than the change in the generic
>status).  Others say the "intent" is clear and the combinations date from
>the generic change (even though the species names aren't specifically
>mentioned).
>
>The ICZN defines "new combination" as "the first combination of a generic
>name and a previously established species-group name."  Saying "I'm moving
>species xus to genus Aus" doesn't include the binomen Aus xus but most would
>probably accept it as a new combination (although some may not); saying "I'm
>synonymising genus Bus with genus Aus" is a grey area.  Some authors site
>this as the source of new combinations, others wait until each individual
>binomen is expressly stated.  There are pluses and minuses to both
>approaches.
>
>In the end, the safest approach is to include a statement of what you're
>doing:  "I support the earlier proposed synonymy of Bus with Aus and the new
>combinations created there for the following species ..." or "The new
>combinations proposed here follow the earlier synonymy of Bus with Aus."  I
>would suggest making it clear what you're doing and why you're doing it
>rather than spending endless hours searching the literature for the first
>person who might have mentioned each binomen in print.
>
>[I'm a fan of focusing on science rather than book-keeping.]
>
>Steve Shattuck

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
phone:      920-424-1002
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and biogeography
of the Campanulaceae s. lat.

Webpages:
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/Lammers.htm
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Resort/7156/lammers.html
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/herbarium/herbarium.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                               -- Anonymous