Botanical nomenclatural query

[Guy Redeuilh]

Jacques : sur quel article du Code te bases-tu pour affirmer cela ?

Guy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacques Melot" <jacques.melot at isholf.is>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Cc: "Guy Redeuilh" <redeuilh at club-internet.fr>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Botanical nomenclatural query


>   Le 29/03/02, à 18:19 +0100, nous recevions de Guy Redeuilh :
>
> >Dear Michael
> >
> >As far as the varietal original epithet is not preoccupied at
> >specific rank, the new name with a new epithet at specific rank is
> >not a nomen novum but a species nova
>
>
>
>     Ce n'est pas une sp. nov., mais - par définition même - un nom de
> remplacement (nom. nov.), car publié pour un taxon ayant déjà reçu un
> nom (à un rang différent), et que le type est le même. (Il s'agirait
> d'une sp. nov. si le type était différent.)
>
>     Jacques Melot
>
>
>
>
> >(the specific name is validly published if the new author indicates
> >the full bibliographical citation of the place where the diagnosis
> >latina and type of the varierty were previously published).
> >
> >Variety and species have now homotypic names, i. e. these names are
> >nomenclatural synonyms.
> >
> >Guy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Michael Vincent" <vincenma at MUOHIO.EDU>
> >To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
> >Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 4:02 PM
> >Subject: Botanical nomenclatural query
> >
> >
> >>  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
> >>
>