Botanical nomenclatural query
redeuilh at CLUB-INTERNET.FR
Sat Mar 30 00:17:57 CST 2002
Jacques : sur quel article du Code te bases-tu pour affirmer cela ?
----- 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.
> >----- 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
> >> was validly published, with some having very strong opinions that it
> >> and others having equally strong opinions that it was not, so I
> >> run it past TAXACOM members...
> >> About a decade ago, a botanist published a new variety of plant, and
> >> variety was validly and effectively published, with Latin diagnosis
> >> 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
> >> the varietal name and its publication, and the same type was used.
> >> name was published effectively.
> >> The debate has been over whether this was a valid way to publish the
> >> species name. Things would have been simple if the varietal epithet
> >> 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
More information about the Taxacom