ICBN interpretation please?

Nadia Talent nadia.talent at UTORONTO.CA
Wed Mar 15 11:56:37 CST 2006

On 15 Mar 2006, at 08:51, Thomas G. Lammers wrote:
>  In any event, the last sentence makes it clear that if Andre said
> they were formae, they are formae.

On 15 Mar 2006, at 09:07, Carmine COLACINO wrote:

> If the author stated the infraspecific rank he referred to were
> formae,
> then, it appears to me, and according to the article you mention
> which ends
> in " unless this would be contrary to the author's statements in
> the same
> publication" that they must indeed be correctly considered as such
> (that is
> as formae, as the author clearly stated). IMHO.

Thanks. I see that it is a reasonable interpretation. Rather
confusing wording in the article though, particularly given the
precedent (article 18.2) of translating "order" to "family" if the
author intended it to be a family. I had thought that the article was
stating that in the past terms such as "forma" were used when
"varietas" was most likely closer to the modern meaning.

Thanks again,
Nadia Talent

More information about the Taxacom mailing list