If the types are living trees, also validly published?

Dipteryx dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Wed Oct 1 12:50:15 CDT 2003


Yes.

Art 37.1: "Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name of a new taxon
of the rank of genus or below is valid only when the type of the name is
indicated."

Since these names were published before that date there is no reason why the
publication should not be valid. Selection of types is a different matter.

Best,
Paul van Rijckevorsel
Utrecht, NL

----- Original Message -----
From: Ruijiang Wang <rwang at HKUSUA.HKU.HK>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: If the types are living trees, also validly published?


> ------------------
>
> This message was posted to an outdated mailing list address.
>
> Please send submissions for TAXACOM to TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
>
> ------------------
>
> Dear all,
>
> Scheffer 1873 and 1885 published two names Cyathocalyx sumatranus and C.
> pubescens (Annonaceae) respectively, and both types were designated as
> living trees cultivated in the Bogor Botanical Garden without specifying
> any information about the cultivating area and number, etc.
>
>
> According to the ICBN, the type should not be living material. So, were
> they validly published?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ruijiang Wang
>
> The University of Hong Kong
>
> rwang at hkusua.hku.hk
>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list