Botanical nomenclatural query
jacques.melot at ISHOLF.IS
Fri Mar 29 22:03:27 CST 2002
Le 29/03/02, à 10:02 -0500, nous recevions de 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."
L'indication stat. nov. est d'un emploi gênant ici, car, selon R.
Mc Vaugh, R. Ross et F. A. Stafleu :
[...] stat. nov. (Lati, 'new status') [...] following a new name
when the taxon has been altered in rank, and its EPITHET from the
name in the old rank has been RETAINED.
>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."
D'une manière générale, il est contraire à l'esprit du Code de
changer le nom d'un taxon, lorsque ce nom est légitime. Cf. la
formulation de l'art. 51.1 :
A legitimate name must not be rejected merely because it, or its
epithet, is INAPPROPRIATE or DISAGREABLE, or because another is
preferable or better known [...] or because it has LOST ITS ORIGINAL
Voyez spécialement l'exemple suivant :
Ex. 4. The name Petrosimonia oppositifolia (Pall.) Litv. (1911),
based on Polycnemum oppositifolium Pall. (1771), is not to be
rejected merely because the species has leaves only partly opposite,
and partly alternate, although there is another closely related
species, Petrosimonia brachiata (Pall.) Bunge, having all its leaves
>Can I have opinions about the validity of the "nom. et stat. nov."?
>(My own opinion is that it was validly published...)
>Dr. Michael A. Vincent, Curator
>W.S. Turrell Herbarium (MU)
>Department of Botany
>Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA
>Email: Vincenma at muohio.edu
More information about the Taxacom