ICBN conserved genus

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Thu Jan 29 20:07:31 CST 2004


An item of the Botanical Web Wish List that was realized awhile back:

http://persoon.si.edu/codes/props/

showing it should be the 1905 Congress.
It also gives references of discussions (which hopefully give more detail)
Best,
Paul van Rijckevorsel
Utrecht, NL


----- Original Message -----
From: Charlie Butterworth <charlie.butterworth at CGU.EDU>
To: <TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:07 PM
Subject: ICBN conserved genus


> The genus Mammillaria (Cactaceae) is a conserved name.  However, I
> cannot place which congress actually conserved the name.
>
> Pilbeam in the Mammillaria Handbook cites the 1930 Vienna congress, as
> does Luthy in his 1995 thesis on Mammillaria.  In 1923 Britton and Rose
> described the genus Neomammillaria because the cactus name Mammillaria
> (described by Haworth in 1812) had previously been used for a genus of
> algae by Stackhouse in 1809.
>
> The St Louis Code lists Mammillaria (Cactaceae) as conserved and the
> algal name as invalid.
> The 1930 IBC (Cambridge) lists Mammillaria (Cactaceae) as conserved for
> Linnaeus' genus name Cactus
> The 1905 IBC (Vienna) lists the same as the 1930 code for Mammillaria
>
> However, I have been unable to find any discussion in both the 1905 and
> 1930 congress proceedings pertaining to the conservation of the name
> Mammillaria for the cactus genus.
>
> This has led me to a number of questions:
>
> 1.  Was the proposal to conserve Mammillaria voted on or discussed?  If
> so, where is this documented?
> 2.  Was the name already conserved when Britton and Rose created the
> name Neomammillaria?
> 3.  Why might Pilbeam and Luthy have cited incorrectly, if they
> actually have done?
>
> I'd welcome any comments, answers or opinions.
>
> Thank-you
>
> Charles A. Butterworth
> Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
> 1500 North College Avenue
> Claremont, CA 91711-3157
>




More information about the Taxacom mailing list