If the types are living trees, also validly published?

Thomas Lammers lammers at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
Thu Oct 2 12:40:35 CDT 2003

At 07:38 PM 10/2/03 +0200, Paul van Rijckevorsel wrote:
>Surely that is a wild overstatement? For quite a few names it is quite clear
>what collection the name is based on. It is just not always marked "typus",
>but that has been a requirement only since 1 January 1990 (Art 37.5).

Overstatement, yes; exaggeration for effect.  But not THAT wild.  I've
obviously never counted but there are many many names that were published
without anything that even comes close to a specimen citation as we
understand it.  Statements such as "Hab. in Dalmatia." do not strike me as
specimen citations.

Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-1002
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and biogeography
of the Campanulaceae s. lat.

"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                               -- Anonymous

More information about the Taxacom mailing list