hyphenated names

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Tue Oct 28 12:23:42 CST 2003


Yes, in this case what really matters is not what the ICBN or ICZN claim,
but what is chosen by the practioners in this particular field. That is,
until the days when all such matters are brought under the BioCode ... ;-)

Paul van Rijckevorsel
Utrecht, NL

----- Original Message -----
From: Jacques Melot <jacques.melot at ISHOLF.IS>
To: <TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: hyphenated names


>   Le 28-10-03, à 1:39 -0800, nous recevions de Adolf Ceska :

> >International Code of Botanical Nomenclature - Preambles

> >7. The rules and recommendations apply to all organisms traditionally
treated as plants, whether fossil or non-fossil, e.g., blue-green algae
(Cyanobacteria; fungi, including chytrids, oomycetes, and SLIME MOULDS;
photosynthetic protists and taxonomically related non-photosynthetic groups.
Provisions for the names of hybrids appear in App. I.

>     Puisque vous semblez vouloir contredire Paul Kirk, le mieux aurait
été de souligner aussi « traditionally » (d'où « The rules and
recommendations apply to all organisms TRADITIONALLY
treated as plants »), puisqu'il écrit :

> >  Yes, TRADITIONALLY they are 'plants' but in reality they are 'animals'.
The last edition of the Dictionary of the Fungi FOLLOWED TRADITION
but for higher taxa provided both forms of the higher taxon name
termination.

>     Voilà...

>     Jacques Melot




More information about the Taxacom mailing list