ICBN conserved genus
Weitzman.Anna at NMNH.SI.EDU
Fri Jan 30 11:07:23 CST 2004
Forwarding a response from Dan Nicolson:
>>> Dan Nicolson 30-Jan-2004 11:02:24 AM >>>
You're right about Amsterdam (not Utrecht), lapsus mentis.
You're probably also right about Britton... I didn't check the publication but Britton was following his own Code (miscalled American), not the ICBN.
>>> Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at FREELER.NL> 30-Jan-2004 5:43:32 AM >>>
From: Anna Weitzman <Weitzman.Anna at NMNH.SI.EDU>
>>> Dan Nicolson 29-Jan-2004 4:49:46 PM >>> [...]
Sadly, Briquet died just after the Cambridge Congress and the Cambridge Code
did not appear until just months before the 1935 Utrecht Congress which
revised it. There was no Utrecht Code (due to WWII) and the conserved names
(with types) sort of fell into a limbo.
+ + +
Although I hate to contradict the Grand Master, to whom we are all indebted
for putting up and maintaining this invaluable website (not to mention other
matters) the 1935 Congress was in Amsterdam, not in Utrecht. There was a
nomenclatural event in Utrecht (in 1948) but never a full Congress. Unlikely
now that there ever will be one.
+ + +
>>> 2. Yes Mammillaria was already proposed for conservation when Britton
[...] (who refused to accept the 1906 and 1911 [1912?] Codes). However, the
list did not list Mammillaria Stackhouse as rejected so Britton (as usual)
had a point, even if you didn't want to agree. The rejection of the earlier
Mammillaria was added in the Rickett and Stafleu overhaul (Taxon 9: 68.
+ + +
Surely this is not a 100 % accurate:
"A conserved name is conserved against earlier homonyms" had been in the
Code for quite some time before 1960 (e.g: Art 21. Note 4 in the 1935 Code
[this is the oldest Code I have to hand])
Paul van Rijckevorsel
More information about the Taxacom