Botanical nomenclatural query

[Michael Vincent]

Dear Botanical TAXACOM members:

A debate has been raging among some botanists about whether a certain taxon
was validly published, with some having very strong opinions that it was
and others having equally strong opinions that it was not, so I thought I'd
run it past TAXACOM members...

About a decade ago, a botanist published a new variety of plant, and the
variety was validly and effectively published, with Latin diagnosis and
type designated, so there is no problem with that name at that rank.

A few years later, a very prominent botanist decided that the taxon
deserved specific rank.  He decided that the varietal epithet was not
appropriate for the species, and coined a new epithet for the species,
calling it a "nom. et stat. nov."  He made clear and direct reference to
the varietal name and its publication, and the same type was used.  The new
name was published effectively.

The debate has been over whether this was a valid way to publish the new
species name.  Things would have been simple if the varietal epithet had
simply been raised to the new rank, which then would have been a "comb. nov."

Can I have opinions about the validity of the "nom. et stat. nov."?

(My own opinion is that it was validly published...)

Thanks.
M.A. Vincent

Dr. Michael A. Vincent, Curator
W.S. Turrell Herbarium (MU)
Department of Botany
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA

TEL:  513-529-2755
FAX:  513-529-4243
Email:  Vincenma at muohio.edu